The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.517 Park Ave.A070-03517 Park Cir*0* GMQS/Subd/Final PUD 1 ~37-074-01016/017 Case A070-03 ~3 .(. OjvÂ©.A...0Â£-L 3 -3-0 9 U D clauson@scaplanning.com, 02:33 PM 6/30/2004, Code Interpretation Request To: clauson@scaplanning.com From: Scott Woodford <scottw@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Code Interpretation Request CC: Bcc: Attached: Stan: As far as we in the Com. Dev. Department know, the plat was recorded for 517 Park Circle. You may want to follow-up with the Clerk and Recorder to confirm that. We hand off the plat to our clerks office and they take the steps to record it and I haven't heard that they didn't do that. I discussed your Code Interpretation request with Chris Bendon. Our analysis of the Code does not provide a specific reference to this situation. 26.470.070A2.5. does not apply because it has to do with remodeling of an existing house, not construction of a totally new one. 26.470.070.2 appears to have more to do with multi-family, lodge and hotel units and not single-family or duplex. 26.470.070.B. is specifically titled for single family and duplex and we believe is the pertinent section. Credit is being given for the existing duplex structure damaged by the fire, in that, the fee in lieu would only be calculated on the amount of new structure on the site, therefore, giving, in essence an exemption to the existing duplex. If the applicant were merely rebuilding what they had previously, then I think there'd be more of a case for not requiring the mitigation. This application, however, is a subdivision and PUD, for completely new structures, so I don't think there is the argument that you are reconstructing or rebuilding what was previously there. I didn't get the chance to bring this up at a staff meeting because I've been under deadlines for other projects and will be out the rest of this week. If you would like, I will schedule this for the staff meeting on July 8th for full staff consideration. Please let me know. Thanks, Scott Printed for Scott Woodford <scottw@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation 5tudies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN S TREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com 23 June 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford Community Development Planner City of Aspen 120 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Request for Interpretation Regarding Affordable Housing Mitigation for Involuntarily Demolished Units Dear Scott: I am writing for a code interpretation relating to the recently approved Wagar-Detweiler lot split. In your staff memo, but not in the final approval ordinance, was a reference to the obligation for the applicants to pay housing mitigation cash-in-lieu fees for the additional square footage ofthe Wagar and Detweiler/Burek replacement dwellings, over and above the existing square footage oftheir respective duplex units. Frankly, we did not focus on this issue during the approval process as we were concentrating on the lot size, floor area, and setback issues. We have been asked by Mr. Detweiler to question the requirement for a cash-in-lieu payment for affordable housing. Section 26.470.070 (A) (2) (d) ofthe City of Aspen Land Use Code provides that reconstruction o f demolished units shall be exempt when that reconstruction occurs on the same parcel or a contiguous parcel. Section 26.470.070 (A) (5) provides that expansion ofan existing residence is also exempt. Section 26.470.070 (B) provides for replacement after demolition ofone or two detached residential units. It is this last section that provides for the various types of mitigation: ADU, cash-in-lieu, etc. However, this section has typically been applied when a property owner has voluntarily demolished a unit and rebuilt a new larger one in its place. In the case of the fire-damaged units of Mr. Wagar, and Ms. Burek and Mr. Detweiler, there was no voluntary demolition. We believe that the right to rebuild these destroyed units without mitigation is provided for by the code, as is the right to expand an existing unit without mitigation. Therefore, it would seem that the imposition of a cash-in-lieu exaction on these owners is not supported by the code, since the demolition was not PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENT5 Mr. Scott Woodford, City of Aspen 23 June 2004 Page Two voluntary and the reconstruction is taking place-with minor expansion-on the same parcel or a contiguous parcel. I would appreciate your bringing this question to your next staff meeting for discussion. At this time, we are not filing a formal request for a Planning Director's Interpretation, but would look forward to your examining this question with your colleagues, bearing in mind the expense and hardship that the fire and subsequent reconstruction oftheir homes has imposed on these owners. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Ce: Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Rich Wagar VI ICL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council j THRU: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director ' f FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planneht- RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 1 READING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; ORDINANCE NO. K) , SERIES 2004 DATE: March 22.2004 . A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, 1 1 subdivide the property 1 1 into two lots and . construct two single- .. .. . family residences. The I . driveway shown will be ; abandoned and moved to - i 1614*'* the south for access to , f re - - . h - one home, while the existing access to the i north will remain for 44 t.y access to the other. ..... I I PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUIVUMARY: PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMOS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single- family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R-15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums P&Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7-0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re-building the non-conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Lise Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single- family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11.428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R-15. PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15.000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single-family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R-15 zone district external floor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in floor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2, however. the applicants have agreed to split the allowed floor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced front setbacks (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setbacks (from 10' to 5'). Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: Tlie P&Z voted to approve the application on March 2,2004 by a vote of 7-0, however. they chose to modify one key condition of approval. Whereas, the applicant proposed a .36 floor area ratio (FAR) for the new single-family structures to be constructed on the new lots and staff recommended a.26, the P&Z voted to approve a .30 FAR. Iii making their decision, the P&Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate. given the sub-standard lot sizes and the desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later in the report and the attached P&Z minutes for more details on this issue). APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGL 2 construction of a "Detached Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single-family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex. which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows iii the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. EXISTING CONDITIONS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County. who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point. the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision. although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non-conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. it.. As a note. Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non-purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration. the Code would allow them to do so. regardless of its existing non-conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation iii development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. Iii this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code. a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential. commercial. tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE S-['AFF REPOR'l PAGE 3 applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property inay have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PLID request and staff s position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: Iii the R-15 zone district. the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.). STAFF POSITION oN PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single-family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement. and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single-family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison). Staff s support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single-family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage iii the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single-family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen bv the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following re asons: , The limitation would allow the project to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view-planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the sum of the new single-family residences will be over 2,400 5 17 P.ARK CIRCLE STAI'F REPORT PAGE 4 square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. m The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. So. the applicants proposal to use the R- 15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller than required lots would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved i f the lots actually met the required minimum of 15.000 sq. ft. For example. on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11.428 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes 4.098 sq. ft. of floor area - arrived at by using the tloor area ratios from the R-15 zone district standards - resulting in a .36 FAR. If, however, the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.), the allowed FAR would be only .30. Per staff- s recommendation of limiting the new structures to 2,880 sq. ft.. (which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 2nd public hearing, P&Z recommended a .30 FAR (equaling 3 400 sq. ft. of floor area) as a compromise between the applicant' s proposal and the staff s recommendation. The chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: Scenarios: Area in R-15 Applicants 11.237 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. .36 Proposal: 11.428 sq. ft. 4.098 sq. ft. .36 Compliance with R-15 Minimit in 15,000 sq. ft. 4.500 sq. ft. .30 Lot Size: Staff 11,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .25 P&Z 11,237 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. .30 Recommendation: 1 1,428 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. â€¢ Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single-family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two-single family residences (in order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a major benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is furtlier benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed if the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements iii the R-15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: R-15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard 25' 10' Setback Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard 10' 5' Setback South Side Yard 10' 15' Setback STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties. while they vary from 0' up to 54'. is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25 1 The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line. the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single-family residences, an exemption to the GMOS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B).in order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE SIAFI, REPORT PAGE 6 Per staff- s recommendation of limiting the size of the two single-family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee iii lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17,2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. 8TAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMOS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. |O, Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings - Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P&Z Minutes Exhibit H: Application An=*int- 4 037- 2 Zkjz- cj,Â£-0,1Â£46{) CO,3 ' . *la-Â¢(..6*1 ~ ~46(#fg.-,29~ A At,9.~,~0:,4 ' - .2.2Â¥17 -k~'ULJZ!2) .06Â·e ~ AA r Â»AÂ·f Â· ~2-UAL*- ~-61. . Â¥01- fle H. il,uâ€ž~ 4.-r-- 93e VA- me f. cÂ»3-(,izury 41% 94+9 fo -teeÂ£Â·30~ fÂ£- kUPA 4 .4*4& 7Â£- AM+ 1 , 74 UN -0.Â«6-64 315Uu#vu Â»,CE1 -Â·Eare g.u_-4- *uu.hu-01.-- 4# c 1614.-0 F74010 (hÂ»194*- -Iti_ ~;_kku~-1'3 '>..23w- .E- â€ž11% ouksÂ£*<* vv--- ty 1-1 1-2 (3-OfC lauo QiÂ®:1 9-~ 11(5~ S. i . 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~, (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen.Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets. Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting. and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director. and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies. and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director: however, -8- according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and. WHEREAS, the PtiD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17. 2004. the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public liearing to March 2, 2004 where, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote. recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision. and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal ineets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal. with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development proposal at a regular City Council meeting on April 26.2004 and. by a vote of to (__ - ), approved this Ordinance (on Second Reading) for a PUD Amendment. Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single- family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles exiting each driveway onto the public street. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. -9- e. Ali encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings. but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees. and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 2. Ihe iloor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of.30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards. along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. -10- Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction. such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law. by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 22iid day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch. City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 26th day of April. 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcestor, City Attorney - 11- EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map iii the AACP shows tlie subject site as "Residential". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is iii compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance. and restore the natural beauty of the environment ofthe Aspen area." which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear. outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? Ylis The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land lise. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore. be consistent with the character ofthe surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 9TAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS. or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to. or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMOS for construction of two detached single- family dwelling unit. - 12 - B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Zone District Dimensional Requirement Proposed Requirement Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot I........................ 15,000............... 11,237 Lotl........................ 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot]. ...... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2.... ........... 15,000............... 11.428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft./each add' 1 100 sq. ft. iii lot area 2.880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft (111 imis slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of. and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses iii the surrounding area. -13- b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics ofthe property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. ~TAFF F]NDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally. staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and o f the surrounding area. 8TAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards forthe R-15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single-family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of o ff-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. - 14 - b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense iii order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or tlie possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway. or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features ofthe site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions iii density, therefore, are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the sites physical constraints. Specifically. the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with. and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses. and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES lT COMPLY? N/A The applicant does not propose an increase iii the amount of allowed density. - 15 - C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. ~TAFFFINDENG: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with tile street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES -16- A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non-residential land uses. spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non-residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city. with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation. and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man-made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest. variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes. legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing. proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan - 17 - an architectural character plan. which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property. represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical. natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade. and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesti't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single-family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements ofthe Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. Attime of building permit, the City will reviewthe plansto ensure theycomply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park. Open Space. or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space. or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD. the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location. and design of the common park, open space. or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. - 18- 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed iii a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC), adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. 1. Access and Circulation. rhe purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and niinimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot. structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES lT COMPLY? YES Both of the proposed single-family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect witli Park Circle, which may include pruning or inoving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle iii front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety tri an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. - 19 - 2. The proposed development. vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? Y I is The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single-family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements o f, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets iii the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts. or other entryway expressions for the PIJD, or for lots within the PUD. are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Criteria #3, #4, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities. payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. -20- EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. 8. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977. that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(lE), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling. or 3) the remode] or expansioii of a single-family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Sin,gle-family. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES iT COMPLY? YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single-family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area oftlie existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMOS Exemption. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee iii lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. -21- EXHIBIT C 3TAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses iii the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. [he proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements ofthis Title. - 22 - STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R-15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide. avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents iii the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES H COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope. tile property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES [T COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing. neighboring development areas, and/or the goals ofthe community. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. -23- D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing iii compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. *TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. - 24 - EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner. Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17.2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS Attendees: Scott Woodford. Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner. Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn. Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17. 2003 meeting. the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single-family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zoning: â€¢ 517 Park Circle is located in the R-15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: -25- Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet â€¢ The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B-Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R-15 zone district is 25 feet. not 28 feet. Furthermore. there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R-15 zoiie district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). â€¢ Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22.665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further. the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. â€¢ Park Fee - The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. â€¢ Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. â€¢ Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: â€¢ Encroachment - An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. â€¢ Site Distance - The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. â€¢ Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. - 26 - Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6- tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC/5 17ParkCircle - 27 - 9 2- . W~er- -.-<Onm221 : : - ~ EXHIBIT E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS \X 99 \14 q 1 /42 11 1: , \ / 3 Â£ 1 2.4 1 ft 4, /\ ..r 4, 60% .1 / %k f - C 'v . / C Fi~ 04-204** *,b *li // L \11 1 Subject Site f /1 ) 39/ 1 01 19 // 41# :. ad~/ df@f' / / 11.237 sq. ft. Iot 1 - -1 7 - 11,498 sq. ft lot 6 1 70 , f~ f - - 4,200 app~x. i~~~I~ <~ ~ f 200 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot / 3,373 sq. ft. home 501 Park Circle ///i f ..- u 15,336 sq. ft. lot /(r / 2 699 sq. ft. home C <J 4 /I '57 44*P> y // f. 1 , / 3- / ///3 11 \ % I 4 / . /A 1 K - / I dt t49, f., 9 //-~ 431?. 1.99<. ) Â»ay.Â«* 2 / 4/, _ ,, I; 14 4** . / ~,4.-V /1 -/ 200 Park Circle - 15,856 sq. ft. lot \96._ // 2,674 sq. ft. home 1 Fal / / \Cy. k ' - ~ >4/ .~ ' firl&_k~ ~ 1 ~ \~ 190 Park Circle I<:1 ' \ ~10:3441 I 18.259 sq. ft. lot 3.004 sq. ft. home O 1 \I -4- 3)4 ~--9 //f//4- .f I. /-Fun \ V I . 1 ': ,/ / Fi=.7-i:il E-\ .// l IN, 0 /, <* f ./ -- 4240-4 \53. i 4///0/1 ~ 3 4.\ 1 %&*. 510 Park Circle ~ Â·Â·I t .~1~ ~~ 41% 24 9 Tri-Plex 6,-L -toâ€ž-1 4 8,200 sq. ft. lot ~ - 1,591 sq. ft./unit / .t .-- i m +=* ---=r i , - 1-/- i ;-1 1.. h -,2 1 1 %~ --fktr--9'j~ ~\I ,~g' F.- -tr-:-42-1 ~e :,I d-9-4 I ir-,tt 1 2-j---/ \ 77,1 1 '. 1 7.|.1 j ~ "=226 = â‚¬'D . r#, 1 /*221 %4 1 4//P 48.9 ~ra/ lili\ 4<44* '92%27%3~ \ I .'- 9 3- 1- 1- ~+*A.@ ~1 -91 /%2'1 -2 --- -4511 \0 - - 1 /*14 1- 9/Â£1- - -< -1, 1 -9,, { - . 04 ---4 1 - - U 9336/ti , 959 4 -/ ' ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~1~ E-1 ~ Ly --~ L-~ ir I 33 Slit /4 1 1 0 1 1 $*Â»*VY ..4 < 1'.IM C 44% 1. '1 , .3Â» I 1:.> ' r.rÂ·Â· 1 0 , .U 4Â» Â·, \ 1 ..pe..i 29 f =/' ), : 41 f ; ... ~ f) Â· , ~ rn nit.mi /~ .-1 , 9 b \ .1 J ] EXHIBIT P SLAN CLAUSON. SETBACK ANALYSIS Planning â€¢ Urban ., Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies - ProJect Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 4 February 2004 FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL clauson@scaplanning.com WEBÂ·. www.scaplanning.com Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 . Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support ofthis variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback ofthe nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear ofthe parcel. In the case ofLot 2, the proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass ofthe building on the plane ofthe street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area ofthe site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities ofthe proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me,_if-yo.u..have.fdcther_questions- about this matter. Very truly yours, / 40*-- Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES. LLC Enc 1. Cc: Applicants itt A if ;-~~-1 Â£/45.7 1 PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE 5ECJ OR CLIENTS 1 \14 \\/ f // i :-:-/ ,~ //f, t- ..\.- // Â«14 4// 4// / \\9\\ /f Hur\.2.\N/f \ : : / Â«0*,/ 7 1 ~ U ~ 1 E--3 -1# li 4/N 1 9 L; 1 LJ 3 11 <U / f k ...1.T -~Â« FUL-tuzzl--1 \1 1 /-/7 /13--Â«403-- C Â» 494 11,Â«/f / 24/1.--ffÂ«Â«44-\ 4/ Lt<Â·4(,(2 3535Z--bfir C \2 7 , ,Â«AL. /7 -Â»41 :- /1,~/41 4 21%14=fÂ«/5 4 t\ \42Â« 7 1-/1 1 - 1- 09- c . 1 1 / f itt / / 1 3\4 F.> .'',r/ , 41 9 32JMpt <lf (74 . , 1 /,/ . 4Â» Â»/ \.7 d~t~L / r (tv / \ 4,49 / \>Â« ~/ \23.9.21+9 2 s * ,~-bÂ·f:i:.:#Â·...:-::t~ Â« Â«>frtÂ«Â»Â»,1 ~ .i iv,Iv44â€ž421-2.~Â· ~~4.9/ /\\ 1 'J ~ 2 9.7 'h Â· - L..~u/ 1, )Â¢ \ 1 0-f\. 2-7/ A I N./ 3 \\f-jut:tf /.'{,M.qrt-~1<>A.:phi//Siv i /\\ , 091 r--7 'Â· , 04;WA, / 4 14 053 'L . 1 4.24â€ž7EE - 1 1 1 1 r /\./f <.1 / IU TE'll-223' <77 4 1.... p - \\ \\ \4\ \ 1 +1 N/'.% \ 7 vÂ·<<A ' ' y ~ L 11 L,n 4 9 1 r / h.\ .4\\r Y X I ''Â« /1 / /1/ \ 4 90/ 4 Z 6- G ..4 %9451 / L_-] Ri pM 77 j , 14qae, n / t.%5Â¥121 / lilli@1\/ C 9- 1 1 88 - -I \ 11 o &--*-11 1__1 / @22 1 I. 4- 4 ElfER i / 944Â«21 DATE SHEEr. STAN ....MON ASS'Kil /6 11. . P.brul. lood Dul) L MA!,4 81,{i~I Wagar /Deteweiler PUD AS['.BI'll Setback Analysis REVISIONS ASPEN, COLORADO ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02,2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P&Z members present were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of"actual use". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zoning was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or determination regarding the parking garage. Johnson continued that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi-family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded that it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it with Joyce and then come back to the commission. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from January 13, February 3 and 4,2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT - 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Wagar PUD th amendment; public notice was received on February 17 . Scott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMOS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R-15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single-family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single-family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR be allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district (page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with a residence at 4,236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R--15 zone district allowed 15,000 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02,2004 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,4=28 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR.) Woodford stated that if P&Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee-in-lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the properly owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part ofthis proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor be less than the floor area allowed in the R-15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and. that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision. and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single-family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02,2004 e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering _ Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible iii the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. of the proposed single- family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of.30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days ofthe final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt o f a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots. the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk. in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subiect property that - fronts Park Circle. comply Wolt: 1- 0 1, fpfnaL CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/03/04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for Adjourned 7pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk or) 2 6. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Lf FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plannei490~ RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 2ND READING, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; ORDINANCE NO. lD , SERIES 2004 DATE: April 19,2004 t..4 , -. A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex C.â‚¬~Â·e,e-n from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property 1 1, 1, , into two lots and Â· construct two single- + family residences. The driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to 9.. * liC / " b. % l. the south for access to FRk - -- A - one home, while the - -1 existing access to the 1.f-4 north will remain for - -. access to the other. , PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST St-JiMMARY: PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single- family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R-15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums P&Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7-0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003. a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re-building the non-conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single- family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11.237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R-15. PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single-family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R-15 zone district external floor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in floor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2, however, the applicants have agreed to split the allowed floor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced front setbacks (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setbacks (from 10' to 5'). Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The P&Z voted to approve the application on March 2,2004 by a vote of 7-0, however, they chose to modify one key condition of approval. Whereas, the applicant proposed a .36 floor area ratio (FAR) for the new single-family structures to be constructed on the new lots and staff recommended a .26, the P&Z voted to approve a .30 FAR. In making their decision, the P&Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate, given the sub-standard lot sizes and the desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later in the report and the attached P&Z minutes for more details on this issue). APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request. the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 construction of a "Detached Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single-family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots. Final Review Authority: Citv Council. EXISTING COND]TIONS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point. however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County. who own the abutting property to the north. to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non-conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note. Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non-purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non-conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development iii order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case. the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGI: 3 applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property inay have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staff's position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWEI.LING UNIT: In the R-15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.). $TAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single- family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single-family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison). Staff' s support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single-family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single-family residences split this square footago in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: ~ The limitation would allow the project to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view-planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the sum of the new single-family residences will be over 2,400 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. ' The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. So, the applicants proposal to use the R- 15 standards for allowable tloor area on the smaller than required lots would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved if the lots actually met the required ininimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11,428 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes 4,098 sq. ft. of floor area - arrived at by using the floor area ratios from the R-15 zone district standards - resulting in a.36 FAR. If. however. the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.),the allowed FAR would be only .30. Per staffs recommendation of limiting the new structures to 2,880 sq. ft., (which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 2nd public hearing, P&Z recommended a .30 FAR (equaling 3,400 sq. ft. of floor area) as a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the staffs recommendation. The chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: Scenarios: Area in R-15 Applicants 11,237 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. .36 Proposal: 11,428 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. .36 Compliance with R-15 Mininium 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. .30 Lot Size: Staff 1 1 9237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .25 P&Z 11,237 sq. ft. 3.400 sq. ft. .30 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. ~ Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single-family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two-single family residences (iii order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a major benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is further benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed i f the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R-15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: R-15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard 25' 10' Setback Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard 10' 5' Setback South Side Yard 10' 15' Setback STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single-family residences, an exemption to the GMOS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Ilousing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or e. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Per staffs recommendation of limiting the size of the two single-family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housiiig Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment o f the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all o f the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17,2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. /A , Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment. Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle' ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings - Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DIt(3 Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P&Z Minutes Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors (Please bring Application from 1 Nt Reading - If you need an extra copy, please contact me) 0,-X 7~6 1' 5-1 9-42 AF~Â©6 LA R - ' A Â»,at guij ,AÂ»,222.,ke., A..0, *mvy,t 6-4. 1,42- 6;-4- an /7'C 4.11. 85~ Atuht~.u.U.ID- 96 ' /*ke 7Â£ 4444 k.O- - c.c*f~Â« - n J (â‚¬ 7-6 0) 8~wi./ 70-Â«c,99 db 7Â¢1 6/Z17â‚¬65- +4.- tr /1Uk-Â·*taa.- Cl ege.- 45,1- *1 *6/4-59 Pt Ttl' JaÂ», Flut A &1~ Ul,â€¢2*-1 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential". Therefore. the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 9TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? Ylis The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and Condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore. be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development o f the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS. or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMOS for construction oftwo detached single- family dwelling unit. - 12 - B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured iii feet or square feet) Zone District Dimensional Requirement Proposed Requirement Minimum Lot Size (square feet) l.ot 1.................. 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2................... ..... 15,000. 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot i......................... 15,000.............. 11,237 Lotl........................ 15,000. 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft./each add'l. 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2.880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. -13- b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways. shade. and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R-15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single-family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass. site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses. which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities. or other utilities to service the proposed development. - 14 - b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owners sole expense iii order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features ofthe site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site' s physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. -15- C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site s iiatural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique. provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced iii an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement ofthe Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. - 16- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? Ylis A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non-residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment o f exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method o f protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the application. some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man-made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety. character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings. use of materials. and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan - 17 - an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical. natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single-family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings. landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property. provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. - 18- 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreational area. LI. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. SATAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC), adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot. structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way. or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both of the proposed single-family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle. which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. - 19 - 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single-family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements o f, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails. pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Criteria #3. #4, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating. to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu. construction of any facilities to be used .jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing. and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. -20- EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single-family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Sinfrle-family. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended: or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: DOES ]T COMPLY? YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling", is applicable iii this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single-family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per tile Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net' increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase iii FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. -21 - EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential" Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFFFINDING: DOES ]T COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix atid will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. - 22 - STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R-15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep. mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See. Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing. neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. -23- D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing iii compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable iii this instance. - 24 - EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer. DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17,2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Torn Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware. Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single-family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zoning: â€¢ 517 Park Circle is located in the R-15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: - 25 - Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet â€¢ The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B-Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit forthe R-15 zone districtis 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R-15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas iii the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). â€¢ Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22.665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. â€¢ Park Fee - The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. â€¢ Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. â€¢ Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: â€¢ Encroachment - An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. â€¢ Site Distance - The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. â€¢ Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. - 26 - Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 st sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC/517ParkCircle -27- EN., . Er'~ , , mÂ»/ i ~St;EN - 1. me EXHIBIT f $ 2 0 fl'f .1 :/z~=--*/:3 12#A \ . 43:635. r V\..4 '*9 . U . 7\... i~ LOT SIZE ANALYSIS 4 7 4%40 0 C.49 / 1 h Â»20...... 1/ // 1 \ Subject Site 9 1 ~ r~~~~ 11.237 sq. ft. lot J \ 14/ #21 4/411 - / 1 11,428 sq. ft. lot . . . 1/' ,&*I , 3 147 /4 ' 15,271 4 1 lot //. - + . Ck ~ 3 f -- q. ft. home ' j -- / V 1 11 200 Park Circle 3,373 s 501 Park Cirde - SPUL I -I' \ ' N JA- 1,1. X 19*U- 1 1 4% \<4/ 15 006 sq. ft. lot 435&0 , .. :' m / ji.f~ 4 2.699 sq. ft. home / 11*3 *4 / U I. 4 #i 9 . 49* , // 1 . v/ / I /4/2/irÂ·: l / 1-1.,\-fl / . /3 >lit' -<:.: -~~ /4Â» /* P. L: :< 2 , / 4/ tÂ®Â«i- / I \ \ 4 :1, - 1 9 1/ - .' 200 Park Circle 2 ~ /' 15856 sq. ft. lot 1749'.Â·. -1 1 /4./ ~ * Apartments ~i - .. 2 5 -1- 2,674 sq. ft. home 29: 2.4/7 ' /. - Â«7 724 / ~ i ' Â¢- 0 ~ , J . 1 / - j \ i A.32%\ 1. " ~+9.jQ~ 4%' I \ 1./L 1 i-.- 1 .. ' I <4{Ed ./ Â·.-)V. 190 Park Circle 1 i I I # 62 / - 18:259 sq. ft. lot I 11 , 4.4 . \\\7- 3,004 sq. 1 home ~ 1 03. 1 1 . ' %44 / /4 m=9Â£/Ot ' 1// V I / PPE.f In 1 : 463 1 1 ::Â· 1 : E -4-- 1 Â· r.Â·-1 X4 1 c - >Â« t. L.1:2%=3 I, rr--7 L{Jilll F-*42* - If // - 41 1 , - -1 41/ 510 Park Circle 8,200 sq. ft. lot ~- Tri-Plex 1 21/ 1,591 sq. ft./unit 1 4 1% ( ) ~ lili r . i .-Ai Em r-1-1 m Il r - -2 1.19.{~ " ..:i .L.. ./. . â€¢: 9Â» 2, 0 I j â‚¬ 1 ,11 4: " . -*Fr-p- 93#%* /90..:C .4*t i i j 1.26 .tb /49-4 1 / r, N 1 t.1 1 &*M /m if--- 1 1 1 tf{Â£ /3 L l 9( .le ... e -9 il L..d ----? 8 - : 11.4 - - . r..3 1 1 43% -i T)/LyÂ·:i P /tÂ·--//7% \C /-1 j .- _ *4 - 44 1-. \1 1 - '9, 1 i. 9 . 1 \ r. /9.27 11 . 50* , ...22> // b. Â· ' .. '. , t 8, :,5 .40% \ ~ En 12 2 ' \ _P 11| i.:....1 1 STAN EXHIBIT F PlannÂ· SETBACK ANALYSIS Lands Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 4 February 2004 FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB www.scaplanning.com Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City o f Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies ofa setback analysis we have prepared in support ofthis variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity ill the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However, a good number ofthese are less than ten feet, and the median setback ofthe nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space ofthe tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the r proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting ofthe principal mass ofthe building on the plane ofthe street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area ofthe site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities ofthe proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, ifyou have further questions about this matter. Very truly yours, 9-i- Stan Clkilon, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Ce: Applicants Flia - 4 FiA lÂ»,44 -C==aeÂ«-42 2, PLANNING A.ND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS . V /44 -/41 Â» f f // 64Â« tp PAS fÂ« 4 /13,7//44 pÂ»f / Â«4099*< / jot / hul _0=::~, MU-J Uf -f i j /2--3 .\66>.,/ 1 \ f W // Â«990 -x-6 - ///34 i h / '94:nk \ L--11\/ /Â»/p> 74Â» 1 / f 4 -ft 4 9/Â« *11~Â»Â»\ \\\ \~-- i ff\~\-11 4 114.t-f-123-~ / X < hÂ« u.4 -4, 72 2/941 f / 4429 V //:A ) / 11 \ LiA 2 X77 ,_ NT>-** r A , 1327 .1 g. 061 2 / / \\ V V /1 AK 1: .1.>@.:.t, rJ P j V 1 23, ... 1 1 -f h 2 Â£. ~ U.-d// / 211Â· V. , 9\/7 r-/r Â·Â·:riep x . --- toâ‚¬t. I .%4, 1 ...1 1 34 . 1 * r'- Â· ' Â·Â· Â· -'27Â£'96, h. -1 :4/,4-0â‚¬:4~ Jtic> -1-4 1 U L Â» f:--i;3/ /:â‚¬1 -2- 1-f 1 61.1 - Â« \9/ Â»1 9 Â« ...'.4.-':.'..Â· - 1 1 L__J L N liu #/14<'/ # />2/ N *-4+1Â« .'Li Â»1\ 1/ [4-0-~ /1. te///fal.% 9.Lu - M. L-J-3 /'// \.11 Id f 1 1 li ..4 .5,4 1 r 77 1 &Â·49:~il/ I Er -/ 77* Â£ / m. 9 - -< / 9 9 / 1 p e Q f ./. 4 \ STANCLAUSON ASSOC!.IM.].1Â£ ..4- SHEET. 2001: MAINSTRIETT Wagar /Deteweiler PUD ASM'COR!611 4 ') Tâ€¢~~-e I.B." Setback Analysis REVISIONS: ASPEN, COLORADO ~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02.2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting o f the Aspen Planning 2 EXHIBIT G Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P&Z r P&Z MINUTES were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of "actual use". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zone district was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or determination regarding the parking garage. Johnson said that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi-family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it and coming back to the Collinilssion. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from January 13, Febru.ary 3 and 4,2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Jolms on, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT - 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Wagar PUD th amendment; public notice was received on February 17 . S.cott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R-15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single-family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single-family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district on page 5 of tile memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with a residence at 4:236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R-15 zone district allowed 15,000 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes 1MARCH 02, 2004 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staffrecommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,428 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR. Woodford stated that if P&Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee-in-lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part of this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor area be less than the floor area allowed in the R-15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area because there was a constant flow of traffic and it would be an improvement very aesthetically done. Burek said they were building a green structure. Roger Haneman asked the FAR for one home with a single lot of 22,000 square feet. Scott Woodford answered the allowable square footage was 4,920. Dylan Johns asked what would be the actual allowable floor area for that lot size (11,237 square feet) that the applicant was proposing, what would be allowed under the zoning. Woodford said there was a different floor area based on a lot size in the code minus the slope reduction, which was the number in the chart (2,880 square feet). Johns asked if the slope reduction applies to the lot before the lot split. Woodford replied that was correct then staff averaged the floor area between the two lots. Jasmine Tygre noted the numbers were troublesome; there were a lot of numbers with three resulting FARs. Tygre said her question was similar because on the chart the resulting FAR, for example, there was a 15,000 square foot lot with an allowable floor area of 4500 square feet and the resulting FAR would be .30; she asked why they didn't take that amount and apply it to the actual lot sizes. Tygre noted there was a sliding scale that gave preference to smaller lots. Woodford replied that the lot sizes included the slope reduction in the FAR calculations; one 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02,2004 lot was flat and the total was averaged at 2,880 each. Tygre noted the sidewalk provision was not specified in the resolution. Woodford replied that it was on the plans and could be added to the resolution. Tygre requested the condition be added. Jack Johnson asked the purpose behind slope reduction. Woodford responded to reduce any amount o f FAR on steep slopes and encourage building on the flat parts of the sites and discourage building on steep slopes; there was a maximum reduction of 25%. Johnson asked if the lot next door was owned by the city and in the county and what was the square footage. Clauson replied it was in the county and owned by the county; it was 6,000 square feet. Johnson asked if there was an attempt to purchase from the county. Clauson answered there has been some discussion with the county but there has been no resolution. Johnson said if it were purchased then the lots would be less short of the 15,000 square feet than it is today. Clauson replied that was correct; there would be a considerable amount of process before that lot could be added to the PUD and this would need to annexed into the city so it was prohibitive to this application because the Detweilers need a home. Johnson said there were no zones between R-6 and R-15. There were no publi c comments but there were 3 letters entered into the public record (1) Gerry Wendell supporting the lot split (2) H. Montgomery Loud supported the lot spit (3) Charles Rowers in favor of the lot split. Ruth Kruger said that this proposal was good for the neighborhood and will improve the overalllook; she will support the proposal. Johns said that if they were putting in sidewalks they would be giving back to the community. Johns noted this neighborhood was surrounded by R-6 and RMF so he didn't see why they should have anything punitive; if they built a bigger house then they would have to pay the mitigation as stated in the code. John Rowland stated that he was in favor of all of the issues but felt a little uncomfortable with the numbers that staff suggested at 2880 square feet given the size of the lot and given the square footage that the applicant asked for. Johnson stated that he didn't see where anyone was being punished; if you don't have a big enough lot then you can't build that square footage, if you are in R-15 you need a 15,000 square foot lot. Johnson said that what was proposed was better than what exists; he could support the staffrecommendation of dividing the duplex into two getting the 2880 square feet and he could support Jasmine's suggestion of using multiplier of.3 for the desirable FAR for a 15:000 square foot lot and to the lot sizes as proposed. Johnson asked if the slope reduction could be disregarded. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02,2004 Woodford replied that it could not. Johnson said that he was trying to compromise what staff suggested and the applicant requested; his figures were 3371 and 3428 square feet and with slope reduction it would be 2578 square feet. Haneman asked if R-15 was the zone on the property when it was annexed into the city. Allgaier answered yes. Haneman said that if you were looking at an empty lot with out the displacement of people and requested cutting the lot in half in the R-15 zone district, it wouldn't be allowed because the lots were 11,000 plus square feet. Haneman said that he was going along the lines where Jack was with the FAR at somewhere in between the applicant's request and the staff recommendation but wasn't sure how to arrive at that number. Johnson explained the.30 calculations, which would be 3370.1 square feet and 3400 square feet. Haneman said that number was almost right on with the square footage of the home across the street, which is currently the in the area according the map. Jasmine was inclined to agree with Roger and Jack on the square footage because these were two non-conforming lots, which were smaller than what was allowed. David Hoefer noted that the language could read the number of square feet less the slope reduction calculated by staff Woodford suggested stating the FAR as supported by the commission. Steve Skadron said that the applicant did a good job of minimizing the impact on the property, which was a public benefit however he sees legitimacy in Roger and Jack' s calculations but has an issue with not abiding by staff s numbers and setting precedent by manipulating numbers. Discussion: Johnson said they have come up with a middle ground between staff' s recommendation and the applicant's request. Kruger said it was a compromise that fit into the neighborhood. Skadron noted it was based on .30 FAR. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #5,2004 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for 517 P ark Circle to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences with thefollowing conditions: 1. Priortoissuance ofa building permitfor either or both of the proposed single-family residences: (a) Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. (b) Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. (c) An outdoor lighting planfor each residence shall be submitted. (d) The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (e) An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. (f) The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 located in the city right-of-way. (g) The building permit plans sh.all reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the propertv lille. 01) The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to-sign off of ally building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible iii the design phase. (i) All tap fees, impacts fees, an.d building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined iii Section 26.575.020 ofthe City of Aspen Land Use Code, ofthe proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 squarefeeteach, which is roughly theresult of afloor arearatioof.30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor arealimitation shall beplaced on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will reqÂ·uire two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recoided within 180 days ofthefinal approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in th.e Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building pei-mit. 7. Prior to issu.ance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct afive (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Haneman, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadion, yes; Kru.ger, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygie, yes. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/16/04,01/06/04,01/20,04,02/03/04, 02/03/04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen; Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson and John Rowland recused themselves. Scott Woodford handed out letters from the public that were received today. Tygre stated that the letters would be introduced into the record just prior to public comments. Woodford explained the conditions in the resolution have been fine tuned over the course o f the public hearings. Through the course o f the review from P&Z, staff and the public the impacts of the proposed building on some of the neighbors consequently a condition was structured required the applicant reduce the impacts to the neighbors (condition #4a). One of the conditions was to reduce this 5 -story portion down a story and remove the covered entryway in order to increase the setback. Woodford said the condition stated the areas closest to the property line be reduced in height and stepped back. A condition relates to Juan Street Affordable Housing with increased setbacks between the Lodge and the northwest comer of Juan Street Affordable Housing stepping back the fourth story to provide additional space between the structures. The bridge over Juan Street was a big concern and it was suggested to remove the bridge entirely or reduce the height of the bridge to one story to lessen the impacts. The safety of South Aspen Street was another concern but snow melting the street was not recommended by the city of 6 EXHIBIT H: Cliarles ]MI. *to,ari LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS February 24,2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: My name is Charles M. Rowars and I reside at 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen. My home directly overlooks the residence where Rich Wagar lived and wants to live. I am writing to you to express my support of the proposed lot split at 517 Park Circle. I have no opposition to the lot split and your recommendation of the lot split will provide an opportunity for improved redevelopment of the fire-damaged duplex. The resulting two houses will be more in keeping with the open qualities of the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staff is proposing to restrict the available floor area for both properties to that of the original duplex. I feel that the restriction as currently proposed by the planning staff is inappropriate. It is my opinion that such a restriction is unfair to the parties involved and that both parties should be allowed to develop homes in accordance to the floor area tables appropriate to the current zone district. Very truly yours, /s/ Charles M. Rowars Charles M. Rowars 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-8037 H. Montgomery Loud 401 Smuggler Mtn. Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 17, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8 I611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Since we have lived in the neighborhood we certainly have the highest regard for the quality of our neighbors' homes. The proposed lot split allowing separate dwellings will provide for improved replacement of the building with two separate and more open sites. This would enhance the overall appearance of this extensive view plane. Very truly yours, H. Montgomer# Loud / IL- /HML 02/19/2004 14:58 FAX 702 362 4348 HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT G 0 002 Feb,19, 2004 1:43PM No.3957 8. 2 .. I MEMORANDUM , Date: February 17,2004 0 $ To; Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Attn: Scott Woodford, Planner From: Gerry Wendel Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado I drive by 517 Park Circle two or three times a day as I reside at 201 Silverlodc Drive, Aspen. I arc writing this letter to express my support of the'broposed lot split. I am of the belief that two single-family homes in;stead of one large duplex will improve the visual impact to the neighborhgod I have also been informed that fheÂ·planning staffhas proposed restricting the available floor area to both properties to that of the original duplex. I believe that this is an inappropriate restriction, as the resulting houses will be too. small to provide for a reasonable return on their investment. It is my opinion, as a neighbor, that all properties in this di#trict should be allowed todbvelop homes of reasonable size, in accordance with the floor area tables approprip* to the zone district. A f- f Gerim Wendel -431 1, . 9 2- 7 67 q q t I. STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COL-ORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 17 November 2003 FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www scaptanning.com Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Request for Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Chris and Community Development Staff: On behalf of Rich Wager, along with Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, we are writing to request that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units ofthe Wagar/Detweiler property located at 517 Park Circle in Aspen. As you may know, the duplex located at the subject property recently was involved in a fire that rendered the structure uninhabitable. The owners ofthe property wish to rebuild the structure as two individual detached units, which will be a benefit to the owners and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. This application requests an approval for this redevelopment ofthe property, pursuant to Section 26.445, Section 26.480, and Section 26.470.070 (A) (2) of the Aspen Land Use Code, as identified in the Pre-application Conference Summary dated 12 June 2003. In this application, we have responded to the criteria in each ofthose sections. We have also attached information regarding an easement agreement executed between the property owners and Pitkin County, which owns the at)utting parcel to the North. Pitkin County has provided the property owners and, specifically Mr. Wagar, with the right to use the County property for landscape and access purposes. Mr. Wagar has asked Pitkin County if they would be willing to sell him the adjacent property that is the subject ofthe easement agreement. Providing this additional property to the overall parcel might result in a minor amendment to the PUD as proposed. However, since the Detweiler family is in great need ofmoving forward on a replacement dwelling, both parties have decided to tender this application without the assumption of further availability of the Pitkin County parcel. 4 h, PLANNING AND DE.WGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS j /3...: Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner 17 November 2003 Page Two I look forward to an opportunity to present this application in the review process, and remain ready to answer any questions that you or the review boards may have. Very truly yours, 74Â» Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: A) Application B) Dimensional Requirements Form C) Land Use Code Standards Report D) Vicinity Map E) Proposed Lot Split Drawing F) Letter o f Authorization from Detweiler/Burek G) Letter ofAuthorization from Wagar H) Preapplication Conference Summary, dated 12 June 2003 I) Richard Wagar Proofof Ownership J) Burek/Detweiler Proo f o f Ownership K) Easement Agreement with Pitkin County K) Private Encroachment License with Smuggler Racquet Club APPLICATION Wagar/Detweiler PUD 17 November 2003 Applicants: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler, and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle in Aspen (PID# 2737-074-01-016/017) Zone District: R-15 An application for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units. Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-2323 ATTACHMENT A I APPUCANT: ~ Name: Rich Wagar, Didc Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Pmk Circle, Aspen (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2737-07441-016/017 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC Adt:-3. 200 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 925-2323 Ptl(~E(Jr: Name: Wagar, Detweiler/Burek Amendment to a PUD, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units Address: N/A Phone #: N/A TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): 3 Conditional Use El Conceptual PUD Il Conceptual Historic Devt 3 Special Review Â® Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) O Final Historic Development 3 Design Review Appeal Â£ Conceptual SPA E Minor Historic Devt 3 GMQS Allotment 1 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) C] Historic Demolition 3 GMQS Exemption Â® Subdivision O Historic Designation 3 ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption Oncludes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margi4 Hallam Lake BlufC condominiumization) Expansion Mounlain View Plane 3 LotSplit U Temporaiy Use D Other: 3 Lot Line Adjustment O Text/Map Amendment EXIErING CONDITIONS: *scription of existing buildings,uses, previous approvals, etc.) The existing duplex was destroyed by a fire and is rendered uninhabitable. The property is pan of a previously established PUD for which established standards were adopted- ROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildingq,uses,modifications,etc.) The applicant wishes to subdivide the property and reconstruct their homes as detached units. This requires an amendment to the PUD to allow a smaller minimum lot size within the overlay area. ve you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 2.520 Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Allachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 0'011*X Attachment B L DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Proj ect: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone Distric: R-15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet Lot Area: 19,166 square feet (approximately) for slope reduction (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercit net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number ofesidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number of, edrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed.- Not determined Proposed & of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimen*ons: Fler Area (sq. ft.): Existing 5760 Allowable: 5,330 Proposed: 4,236 - Lot 1 duplex duplex 4,249 -Lot 2 P~iicipal bldg. height. Exikting: 28 ft. Allowable: 1% 1 Proposed: 28 11. Access bldg. height: Existing: NIA Allowable: 15 1 Proposed. 25 ft. On-Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed: Not determmed % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: NIA Proposed: Not determined % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: IN/A Proposed: Not determined Front Setback lfeet), Existing: 25 Required: 15 Proposed: 15 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 CombinedÂ¥Â®. Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing.- 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed.- 20 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11.237 square feet. ATTACHMENT C Introduction On April 12, 2003, a fire erupted in the duplex located at 517 Park Circle that left the structure dilapidated and uninhabitable. Rich Wagar owns and occupied one ofthe units, and Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek own and occupied the other unit. These two families suddenly found themselves without a place to live. Needless to say, the owners would like to rebuild their homes and continue with their lives a soon as possible. However, rather than replace the previous duplex configuration on the site, the applicants wish to subdivide the property and build two detached single-family residences. The intent is to build architecturally two pleasing structures, which would contribute to their privacy and would enhance the general aesthetics ofthe neighborhood. The fire-damaged duplex was designed as an elongated two-story structure. It blocked viewplanes of Aspen Mountain, Shadow Mountain, and Buttermilk from Park Circle. These views represent amenities that can be considered a community benefit that would be restored with a two-lot configuration, especially considering the location at the base of Smuggler Mountain Road. The proposal would break up the mass and bulk ofthe duplex structure, and allow for development oftwo smaller structures that would enhance the visual quality ofthe Park Circle area for the community at large. Wagar, Delweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 1 Land Use Code Standards Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. Responses to Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.445.050 A. General Requirements 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character ofthe existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempted from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to: or in combination with, the final PUD development plan review. Response: This proposal supports the reaffirmed goal ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan in that it will, "Enhance the character and charm of Aspen. " By detaching the two units, the overall aesthetic quality of the property will be improved, while exposing valuable Â¥iewplanes from Park Circle that are currently blocked. The prominent visual barrier posed by the duplex will be eliminated. The proposed PUD amendment will not adversely a#ect thefuture development of the surrounding area. It will improve it by enhancing the aesthetic and architectural quality of the neighborhood. The applicants wish to reconstruct separate residences that will incorporate defensible space between units to lessen the possibility ofjtre destroying more than one unit (if such an unfortunate circumstance presents itself in the future). The applicants are also requesting GMQS Exemption pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070, which is addressed later in this application. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in the General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 above. The dimensional requirements ofthe underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMOS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 2 development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics ofthe property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics ofthe property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: The proposed PUD amendment will allow the construction oftwo single-family units that will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. There are no natural hazards on the site. The applicant intends to utilize a small portion of steep slopes where development will be engineered to assure soundfoundation construction. The proposed development will create no further noise, trajfic, transit, or parking generation than did the previous duplex. Pedestrian circulation will be improved through the installation of public infrastructure in the right-of-wayfronting the two parcels. There are no identified historical resources on the property. The proposed dimensional standards of the amended PUD are as follows: Minimum lot size (square feet): 11,237 Minimum lot width (feet): 75 Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential 25, Accessory 30 Minimum side yard setback (feet): 10 Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Residential 10, Accessory 5, Other 20 Minimum height (feeO: 25 Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 10 j Percentage ofopen space required for building site: no requirement External floor area ratio: Same as R-15 zone district Section 26.710.050 Note: The only variation from the R-15 zone district (andthe existing PUD overlay) that is requested by the applicants, is a smaller minimum lot size as specified above. The building envelopes created by the standard setbacks are illustrated on the drawing provided as Attachment E. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character ofthe proposed PUD and ofthe surrounding area. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 3 Response: The scale and massing of the proposed units will comply with the requirements of the underlying R-15 zone district and will compliment the character ofsingle-family residences that exist in the area. The encroachment of the existing duplex onto the adjacent Pitkin County Property will be eliminated upon reconfiguration of the property. The newly configured lots will result in a small increase in floor areafor each of the proposed detached units, which will be comparable to the allowable floor area on surrounding lots of equal size. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods ofuse, whenever joint use ofcommon parking is proposed. c) The availability ofpublic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity ofthe proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Response: The new residential units will not require more parking spaces than previously provided. Current residential parking requirements of the land use code will be met on site. 4. The maximum allowable density within the PUD may be reduced ifthere exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: The PUD amendment will not create a greater demand on infrastructure and utilities than did the destroyed duplex. Adequate infrastructure currently exists to serve j the proposed units. Additional pedestrian infrastructure will be provided along the Park Circle right-of-way fronting the parcels. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced ifthere exist natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density ofa PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 4 b) The effects ofthe proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area in the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response: There are no natural site features on the property that would deem the land unsuitable for development. No detriment to drainage, watershed or air quality will result from detaching the two residences. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased ifthere exists a , significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and - with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density ofa PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals ofthe community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern I compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Response: The applicants are requesting the ability to construct the same number ofunits that existed within the destroyed duplex. The applicants are willing to deed restrict the subdivided properties toprohibitfuture development of duplexes on either lotinejfortto maintain the current density of the area. C. Site Design. The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity ofthe town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Wagar, Detweiler/Bunk PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 5 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed I to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: The site Man of the proposed detached single-family residences wili allow for enhancement of vistas andviewplanes by breaking up the visual barrier thatisposed by , the existing duplex structure. The residences will be clustered and situated to maximize the lots and eliminate encroachment onto adjacent open space properties. , Emergency and service vehicle access will be improved to meet City standards. Pedestrian/ handicapped access will be incorporated as part of the final design. The applicant will submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to building b permit submission. D. Landscape Plan. I The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure compatibility ofthe proposed landscape with the I visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features ofthe subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and made-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. \ Response: The existing vegetation on site is strictly ornamental. The applicant is willing to replace the vegetation in equal quantity upon reconfiguration of the lots and the re- location of the detached units. There are no significant features on the site that require preservation. Some screen planting currently exists on the front public right-of-way. This planting would be relocated to provide space for a sidewalk Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 6 E. Architectural Character It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient I use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability ofa building for its I purposes, legibility ofthe building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, I scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character ofthe proposed development. The proposed architecture ofthe development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture ofthe property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative ofthe intended use, and respect the scale and massing ofnearby I historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage ofthe property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use ofnon- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and I appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: As mentioned previously, the applicant intends to design the detached dwelling units to compliment the character of the surrounding area in accordance with City of Aspen Residential Design Standards. The proposed structures will be oriented towards the , south to allow for greater solar exposure. ' It is not anticipated that the removal of snow and ice will require significant maintenance ) on this property beyond that which was required previously with the duplex. F. Lighting. I The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure that the exterior ofthe development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of I any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and I access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 7 Response: All lighting will be incompliance withthe Outdoor Lighting Standards andthe 4 applicant will make every effort to assure that lighting will not inteifere with adjoining , streets or lands. The Applicant has committed to incorporating lighting that that will not divert undue attention to the property. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. Ifthe proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design ofthe common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features ofthe property, provides visual reliefto the property's built form, and is available to the mutual I benefit of the various land uses and property users ofthe PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner b within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through al legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance ofopen spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or I industrial development. Response: There is noincorporationof commonpark, openspace, orrecreationareain the PUD amendment proposal. However, the proposed development will move further away from existing open space, which will preserve the viewplanes associated with that b parcel. H. Utilities and Public facilities. 1 The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue I burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following. 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by necessary improvements at the sole cost ofthe developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 8 Response: The proposed PUD amendment will have no greater impacts on public utilities and/or facilities than did the duplex structure. Adequate services currently exist in the area. Access and Circulation. The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation ofthe development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, ' or other area dedicated to public or private use. 1 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do t not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas ofhistoric pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or B connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendation ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific I plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under I private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure I appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. * Response: The proposed development will continue to provide adequate access from Park Circle, which is a public road within the City of Aspen. No public trails or easements are proposed a part of this application. However, sidewalks \ will be installed in the Park Circle right-of-way abutting the property. 2. Responses to Section 26.480.050 Subdivision A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 9 b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Request: As mentioned previously, the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan by improving the overall aesthetic quality of the area. It is not anticipated that this development proposal will affect the future development of the surrounding area in a negative way. The subject parcel is the largest lot in the PUD overlay district. The minimum lotsize as requested inthe PUD amendmentwill be 11,237 square feet, which will not adversely ajfect the future development of surrounding lots in the district. 3. ResDonses to Section 26.470,070 (A)(2) GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units The reconstruction of demolished units shall be exempt. An exemption request that includes a request for an extension ofthe three year deadline on reconstruction of demolished dwelling, hotel and lodge units shall be accompanied b an improvement survey ofthe structure. No demolition shall occur until the Community Development Director has verified the accuracy ofthe improvements survey. The exemption for reconstruction of a demolished unit is available only upon a finding ofcompliance with the following standards. a. An applicant may propose to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of existing dwelling, hotel or lodge units. b. The applicant shall verify, by letter submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, the number of existing legal units on the property prior to demolition and shall agree that reconstruction will occur pursuant to terms ofthis Section. c. Reconstruction shall occur within five (5) years of demolition, unless an extension ofthis deadline is granted by the City Council for good cause. d. Any building that is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same parcel or on a contiguous parcel owned by the applicant, unless it is determined that reconstruction shall be permitted off-site pursuant to Section 26.520.020 (D). Response: The applicants do notwish to delay the reconstruction oftheir units. Redevelopment is intended to occur within one year. The applicants will send verification to the Community Development Director that two legal units were built on the property. The applicants do not propose to construct more than two single-family residential units. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 10 4 7 -If 1 / \ PU\.4944613 f>if 2 : ATTACHMENT D Â« \\ 6- -..923 Â»& 0 5/ \% r--<~-1- {Q <39~~1~ / - ' ~. ~~ ~~-~ ~~f *-~jttti-,7Â«~ ly:?t!;#211/flit!111-1 1/lim'lll Afit433 /flu ('bi~ ~~ Â¤Â·Â·,-Â· Â·f Â·Â· .1 .:0 -,-'-"Â·Â·-:Â· .tat:.04*52:,3 L.1 4 1 ~i, k \ Â« 6. 0 1 h /7Â» CA â€žlut . 1 .fililli;!11:/ :i:,5,/ 1 1 K \ 9~NES; END PROPERTâ‚¬s/ 1 ' lillli /+ f L-â‚¬33 'Â·*Â·i,A!11:1/i:l,11, i / \ U.,/0..':30,440446 / Mt~ Â°c~/I <17 1 -4- P,ny-1 3 01_ 11 L) 3 ,Â¢>.3,~ -Â·1292,<4'Â·%;5>,'40' \ 61 --1 931- 1 21Â©03\ > 724 / 949 c 0491 1,Â«%99,-i C + ~= 15 -7 8---7/ - 1 ..111 d il I 0 1 +1 0 Â»6-0 foorÂ»cÂ« NÂ« C/,-1-tefRD 6 +/+ 9 0 \ 4-044 , /4 ~JOUJE GIBSON REP f-~u z. 41Â«944: Â«2,91 + 0 001, , 4 + ffÂ« Ap /3\ . 7<40:filri 1 . . 111 1 - 90 1 1 - . M 1- r 11r: 12 9, {1 QU F Â· - ////70,04\'~,U 4 2 .-.1/11 + \ ' 979Â¢0/ Ill 1/ \,0 4./~ 7,>-- f 4 0/ ., 0 / I , , 4 1...9/9 03/ 4 3ff 634 0 h 4. 1 1 /4 l ' 1 + \Cit + 0 -6 f, f--1\ 4 ri~ 2, 44 1 '1 ri , 1 (\A A. 4 --&--3//1 Â¢gn ' -- ri_1 / rn \ Llc /7- N + Wagar, DetweilerIBurek PUD Vicinity Map (not to scale) FRUCE WNEE I I.527,500 ~ 11 3 0~2'629'* 3 ATTACHMENT i / // 1 1 ' l ~ ST.AN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC - - _ 1 Planning â€¢ Landscape ArcÂ·liitecÂ·tm-e 200 East Main Streetâ€¢Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 -7 54' faxÂ· (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ info@scaplanning.com i, -\ 1 F. *~ ~1 Â«/~ 1 9 b .2 /5. 11 , / \~ P RACCI.fET CLUB , Evt, 466 Â·U PAGE 302 6 1 1 ,/ , h f f 1 4 0 1, - / 0/ F J ..0- / / l l/~ .71-69 :/ 1 -/ , i /3 '. 4, f i: [f 1, / / 5' / 1 90 1 1 ' 11,237.85sf Property~ , /1 5860.2sf Building Envelope } ' 6 f f IN, ti aT- --1 \ 10. 1 A /UN\\Â» f /1 1 0 % \\'\i \; \ , <e It F--1 f 1 01 1 '1, f Â»h -t l O 1 l jo 1 .229 -afflidic f j 12' W,de Drivew j O 1 / 1 r.~~~ %- 1 1 -1 . 1 , Re-Locote Existing Be, ond Existing Vegelotion 1 0 -/ , 1 1 ,- Ub-- h~ p . --- / 1 1 14 4, 25' \ / . 7 / -// /4 1, 3 1Â£1--- --- . / /4, 9 4 4,0 4 111 1 X 1 L A 4 / / '2 kf \4,==~ --b : 1 Â» 4 i./22 /2, // f///2,7 .19- r- 08/---- - X g 1, (1 'â€ž7 / A , c 11,428.83#f Propert>â‚¬ / f 6,562sf Building E,nyelope u...-Â«Â»-4-Â« /-- 03 .Err 48 .2 Â· ah,~#in# crtÂ©ze,pep 0 101 ---- T ,BENCHMARK~ ELE : Â· -2 82 \ fl : .'9 8 4 E i /3/ f ,\ I \ < 2-5. , / f /.'.'' fa#24)11 4, - T â‚¬ ' th Il'/t,/FF NtÂ· N i / A 1 50 Wide 5/deâ€¢o/k '~ , ) L 12' Wide Driveway â‚¬ 4. , 1 \ 2- it ?it i lEt F . % 1- ,.,/ ---O'5 ,-46 Lu,5.17Â£ . -Ea \ N. h ..44\ 7 4.1 4 f { 2 2 / .' 286 1 7\ 4. Wagar-Detweiler Property Â® ' 26 June 2003 ' 11Â· ,)6v~Â»te ...440%44.30 e UX --543 'u,3 LOCATE Revised- 6 October 200. 1.2:0 i. / Option Cl f OUND :5 RfijAR. , - 39' it,Â·TVENY CORVE.4'-0 1 "=49 20' JO' 45' 1 AG,e Side,Â¥O/* X~/////A r//////A Y//////////A F//////////A ] 4 ATTACHMENT F 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase ofthis project. Ifyou have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerel# Dirk Detweiler 4/ . 21 {t ' 'V 02Bra~:#liNk ATTACHMENT G 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase ofthis project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, ,-----1 C Al Ir-vh,.- RiÂ¢h*agar /? ATTACHMENT H CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: James Lin(it, 920.5095 DATE 6/12/03 PROJECT: 517 Park Circle REPRESENTATIVE: Brian MeNellis OWNER: Rich Wager TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment, Subdivision (Lot Split ifreview standard "A" is removed as part ofInfill Code Amendments), GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction ofDemolished Units DESCRIPTION: The applicants would like to construct two (2) detached single-family residences in place of the duplex that burned down at 517 Park Circle. The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment to establish a minimum lot size on the parcel that it is small enough so that it could be subdivided into two (2) separate lots. Currently, the applicants could not apply for a lot split on the parcel because it has been previously subdivided as is prohibited by Lot Split Review Standard "A". However, the infill code amendments that are currently being reviewed by City Council are anticipated to remove Lot Split Review Standard "A". The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment on the property even though it under 27,000 square feet because it contains a PUD overlay zoning. Applicable Code Sections: 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 26.480 Subdivision 26.470.070(A)(2) GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units Review by: Staff for complete application, referral agencies for technical considerations, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council on PUD Amendment and Subdivision Application, City Council for final review of PUD amendment and Subdivision. Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance Planning Fees: $2520 Deposit for 12 hours of stafftime (additional stafftime required is billed at $210 per hour) Total Deposit: $2520 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number ofthe representative authorized to act on behalf ofthe applicant. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Pre-application Conference Summary. 5. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 6. Proof of ownership. 7. Letter of consent from all ofthe Condo Owners in the building to apply. 8. Proposed site plan that includes a parking plan. 9. Proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include the proposed dimensional requirements to be established in the PUD. 10. Proposed Subdivision Plat. 11. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation ofhow a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 20 Copies ofthe complete application packet (items 2-11) 12. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Process: Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application referred to applicable referral agencies. Applicant is given a public hearing date by Staff. Staff writes a memo ofrecommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews case and makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council makes final determination on land use requests. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. FBAug. 8. 2003 64: 24PM -- PITKIN COUNTY TITLE-Â·Â·Â·Â·-.4---4---â€¢m-m-+ ATTACHMENTI 0 '. Â¥ .349123 09/30/92 11;16 Rec â€¢10.00 Bl< 690 Fe 38 - rp *,/ p Silvia Davis, Pithin Cnty Clord:, Dee â€¢53.20 0441. - -- lit 1 9 WARRANTY DEED k Tms DIED, M=â€¢ m 29th d.yof September m 92,4,-m Ralph Melville and Marlan Melville of*be ' Couwly of Pitkin wid Stale Ot 4 Coic.â€¢d~ pr.tier,-6 Richard H. Wagar 1 . *-e |Ce:â„¢dtr-h 0155 Lone Pine, Unite A-3, Aspen, Colorado 81611 -9 09 6 *ty of p i tkin c,J Shne ' WEII=5111 Thâ€¢uÂ» 0-bandincomeerall~oya,-4 FIVE HUNDRED AND 11NYmLTW=THOUSAND ~~~ conty -1 <Marm.1,â€¢100**Imr,Iee.hisheinandi,;imlb-r, Wl thcrn~~.FMY{ogalh*,within~reecti,e.ze. M=t,st-1.1,ing Indbemaintbe FORTY AND NO/100----($532,040.0013 -Â·- ... Â·Â· - DOUARS therÂ®034* m' 0]Mole,Ky ofwhick LE hcltby-nowledied. hi p*d. 6.rEJANd. â€¢014- cur-ed.Indby lb=. mwdls,krunfrt, 61['pID.1411. Co%*ty ef Pitkin .4 Stnte ef Colead. 40â€¢Ilt.4 0 &00â€¢0; ~M ~5~.St'~~t~'~~dN~i|~1~m ~~~~~ CONDOMINIUMS, 0 64 according to the Map thereof filed for record in Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and S according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 549 and amended January 15, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 847. Plikin County, Colorado 1. , 85-,)by;mt=mimmber.: 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado 81611 TOCK,imR withall all,latolu nte n,mdit.,ncnw w appurkâ€¢ket e,21*sl~ 11â€¢ran#% or DI #11.,bemulabb# and fhe m,40, md r,/mlon51 â€¢vallodtralld mmall*im. EAU. Iâ€¢Joel and pr- (hereLL W â€¢JI el!, emaw, right. litte. #En,-r. elolm and demprud whâ€¢(80â€¢4â€¢r of the g!â€¢ImI. chhrr 11 tru ort,r* of. 9 104 m A â€¢bow barvt- WED,1*:, with Ihe busdil-m an,1 - - ~ ,0 1 TO HAyZ AND TO HOLD 9,8 said pramloe. abor WIâ€¢Ined ind dee:16(41. 1 1111 11,0 *puRAIA- 90,0 11Â·e Jign,c. his htin ind rnig,$ 507-r. And * matoi, 8]rhin.elt klihclrs, Ind pÂ©nonâ€¢I fâ€¢,Iticnialki, dge& cagralnt, anni, Wrgain. and,04 u, - i:lh ate glittie. ]ili tlet,1 nd Ifilnâ€¢, 11â€¢1 401=ime of,he ensÂ¢*Ing *14Â®linly of Ihexples:an. ho h *,11 Eclmd of Ibc Ne]*4 aborccoeve>ed, h=goed. sum, perfect. .bsolut midindehulblets#*grÂ¥,=itrâ€¢x,Inlaw. Inkisimple.Nd}10 0-,{141. full poeâ€¢Â¤ 991 1-M 0,Molliylognni. barteln. Sel! and touriyule gaae in g-mer eld *m a *re:asif J. ind Inat Uâ€¢ 1=â€¢ - Ree 2,1,1 02- flrm 011 R=r ind oliher grints. b=61|na, wid. 1;61|8, ma age#mants. enoumpranec, amaishle- of %,nae,crkind o~antal-,ute, 1. ThoseÂ· easements, reservations, restric- tions and other matters more particularly set forth in the Exhibit A attached 4 hereto and nade a part hereof; AND EXCEPT' general real estate taxes for 1992 and '23 gubsequent yearâ€¢ which, after adjustment and proration as of the day hereof, @ GWÂ©ltrW:&1JJ~UP)3#UR,E&~END moste.4.0.1.16(dpitmlic, lathâ€¢ plet,ndpcoccablcpon,Entaaorthe 01*0. Mi helm -1 migni,Rglimil all â€¢nd.rgypmollip,non,1,â€¢tully-imilidic wbol: orâ€¢nypm,ther=Â£ The singullrumt,rehallt,cludellâ€¢plutil. h @06 Ole pl-] 41â€¢:ingul=. ma ahe uâ€¢ of any Bende,Blatike :Mliabh. 1041 lendeit ~P.&1~ IN WnNBS WHEREO1% 11= erâ€¢~10, hu .ecuW *lbdua ., tha do,4 5, re,lh~-- , lA o .no 31\ R..80.. B, OXAt.06'lf . RE '9*-*94* *mi RALPIT-MELVILLE MARIAN MELVILLE - STATE OF Cal.ORADO COOnvof pitkin -. The for,8814 103!nt..,ent *25 =6.-d:.d beforn 11.: [ha 29th ' d,,of September , 1, 92 by Ral ph Melville and Marian Mel Ville ' . ' , 19 Â·W:*ts my han aud omdal le,1. My p.ti.le. c,#res 2/21/1993 :< # 7 te .1.-At . 49& -Â· MF S.1-W #': .--- -.'* - 9 in D-er. 1,1,2,1 o. 3962 R. 9314.Reâ€¢,7-88. WARRANrÂ¥P,5WUr.-râ€¢=ofFâ€¢â€ž*],-1 Broe,1Plibli,hipt. !7â€¢3 WheÂ¢ h.. Derâ€¢tr.00 Mul -0031 291-2500- - 140 AN L 49 10119 p..183â€¢M UD E-ke-"Floa (1*r-#le t. . No.7661 9. 3 ~Aug. 8. 2003 2 4:25PM.31*iPITKIN COUNT'? -TITEEK!,4~' 5 4 .." le. 1 0349123 09/30/92 11:16 491 *10.00 Bl< 400 FO 39 4:PEW . Silvia Davis, mitkin Caty Clerk, Dog *53.20 EXHIBIT A t TO Â· f' 4 . WARRANTY DEED .,1 2. Right of the Proprietor of I Vein or Lode to extract and remove h13 ore therefrom, 0 should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent racorded May 20, 1949, in Book 174 at Page 171. i tp. 2. Restriction:, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause. as contained in instrument recorded March 30, 1964, in Book 206 at Page 301. 4. Those covenents. conditions, obligations, easements end restrictions which are a burden to the Condominium Unit described in Scheelue A, and set forth tn the Condeminium Declaration recorded January 7, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 547. 5. Those covenants, conditions, obligations, easements and retrictiont whid, are a burden to the Condomlnium Unit described *ln Schedule A. and set forth in the Cundominlum Ducluration recordid January 15, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 847. r , 6. Ten foot utility easement and 30 foor building set-back restriction as shown on Map for Lot 5, Sunny Park North ta Condominium) recorded in Flat Book 12 ot Papa 50. . .A ' , .. I . 4 ... 2 I ./ r - I .. . I '... :.' 4 1 4+ Â· ' $..*r i . , 8,54:., $41 /6 52403 4 Vilf I . . 7. C .. . - 0 4 2 â€¢0Â· Â· . 1 4 - 4- ' 4 Â·5, 4.: %6 . 1 . 1 'I . 7 7 , 4 -' , V .. ' i f 1 - 10 3 AD., 24 - th ...:N.y,Â£ ATTACHMENT J I , 1 14,56 , WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this January 30, 2001 Between MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN of the County of 54 e. i k~ , State of TN, GRANTOR, Â·AND DIRK DETWEILER and DEBORAH J. BUREK, GRANTEE 13 <30 i n + Tin a.n-ts whose legal address is : P,O. BOX 812, ASPEN, CO, 81612 of the County of PITKIN, State of CO WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm Unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: SOUTH CONDOMINIUM UNIT, LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMIN1UMS, according to the Map thereof filed for record in Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982 in Bbok 419 at Page 544 and amended January 15, 19821n Book 419 at Page 849. TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances th*reto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues a|nci profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in laW or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and qssigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. , INA17(TNESS \A#HEi~OF th?1~rantor has executed this deed. C i.'21-7/--Â·- 5 \204 Â«222Â»- U-< ejjl- ARTIN J. LIQH]!ENMAN KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN STATE OF <4/"Â·-F-'-Z/-,1/ ss COUNTY OF *~1K~Â·'~~---9 A The Toregoing instrument(~~s acknowledged before me this ~-91 day of A-4 , 2001, j by MARTIN J. LICHTERZ.,ANand KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN. 11 ' 944 174 1 WITNESS my hand and official seal my commission expires: i 5 1 j NotaryÂ¥>ulgfic - / UY GOW#USIOH EXPIRES AUG. 10, 2004 ! I. 313 e '4.-' r 1 BlLLOFSALE 4OW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS CHTERMAN the County of , State of TN (Seller), for and in consideration of TEN OLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION to him in hand paid, at or :fore the ensealing or deliver of these presents by DIRK DETWEILER and DEBORAH J. BUREK of e County of PITKIN, State of CO the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has bargained and Ad, and by these presents does grant and convey unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives Accessors and assigns, the following property, goods and chattels, to wit: S SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT"A" ATTACHED HERETO cated at 515 PARK CIRCLE, #S-6, ASPEN, CO 81611 D HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives, successors id assigns, forever. The said Seller covenants and agrees to and with the Buyer, his personal presentatives and assigns to WARRANT AND DEFEND the sale of said property, goods and iattels, against all and every person or persons whomever. When used herein, the singular shall clude the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all enders. IN WIT~ESS H#REOF, the Seller has executed this BILL OF SALE this 25 day of January, Eid ,. Th 911-1- -- IARTIN J. UNth-ERMAN ' wl.-1-1 Ct-Q.Qi nÂ»HK. 4--\-LA AY WEEMS LICHTERMAN TATE OF *fWLÂ·Â«_) OUNTY OF bkiL -- ,SS: 6 \11 he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 21day of Il/hu.u-â€¢J, l/ 2001 1 MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN Fitness my hand and official seal. Ay Commission expires: .'lool-,AUG '0 2004 ~ Notan/PubliE U - 1-\ L /.I 91.-0 1 1 Recorded the day of ~_1_., at o'clock m. Reception # Recorder By QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this day of Iii 'tu. # P ~ 20, g>00 1 , between BUD HICKMAN AND CONNIE HICKMAN Grantor, for the consideration of *** TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION *** in hand paid, hereby sells and quitclaims to ~ DIRK DETWEILER AND DEBORAH J. BUREK, AS JOINT TENANTS ' t 1 1 & 1, Grantee, whbse street addred is P-0. 9gx 812 1 City of Aspen , County of Pitkin , State of Colorad* 8161,2 the following real property in the ' County of PITKIN , and State~of Colorado, to wit: i .SEE EXHIBIT "Al' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; i~ 1 11 1 also known as street and number 515 PARK CIRCLE, ASPEN, CO 81611 TOGETHER with all its appurtenances. The singular number shall include the plural, the plurat the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. Signed as of the day and year first above written. , //iÂ» t\- C , 'JA_1_/ll fll.AC~~ B~ HICKMAN 1 N Uht,pt,cel,*4*HO CONNIE HICKMAN State of Colorado ) .) SS. County of PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowl edged before me this day of J-Q K Kirq 30, 0 â‚¬b / by BUD HICKMAN AND CONNIE HICKMAN ,/~~ Witness my hand and offici4[ seal. My commission expires 111 9 300 4 flu 94Â«- ~JANICE-L. JOHNSON 1 NOTARY PUBLIC 1 STATE OF COLORADO b:'c5:z=z:~;:3::rz;r:42.0,4 When recorded return to: Form No. QCD (Quit Claim Deed - 2/97) Q381101 Q381101 0 6791 1 11 EXHIBIT A 1 PARCEL 1: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCEJBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, aTY OP ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, WHENCE A NO. 5 REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 BEARS N. 09 1 DEGREES 27'35" E, A DISTANCE OF 226.95 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE BASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 98.27 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 112 DEGREES 36'37", AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARINGN. 45 DEGREES 14'31" E. A DISTANCE OF 83.20 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CONSTRUCTED CENTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE THE FOLLOWING 2 (TWO) COURSES: THENCE 1) S. 34 DEGREES 42'29" W. A DISTANCE OF 7.54 FEET; THENCE 2) S. 36 DEGREES 07'02" W. A DISTANCE OF 75.05 FEET; THENCEN 52 DEGREES 00'00" W. A DISTANCE OF 13.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF- BEGINNING. PARCEL 4 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ' BEGINNING AT A NO. 5 REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OP PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; THENCE S 46 DEGREES 16'14"E. 107.35 FEET; i THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE'CONSTRUCTED CENTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE 7.76 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS 247.89 FEET, A CEN'rRAL ANGLE OF ] DEGREE 47'37" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING S. 23 DEGREES 32'28" W. A DISTANCE OF 7.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THENORTH LINE OP S.AQ) LOT 6; % THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N 42 DEGREES 29'00" W. A DISTANCE OF 110.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO. % 4 1 1 I rot-Â«â€ž4: Di r L 6 -D et ;u 6 1 w Evt YLA A-ip,n C o % ' 4 < /- 6.,0 IA I . UP ' EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable. . 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949 )n Book 175 at Page 171. 3. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in instrument recorded March 30, 1964 in Book 206 at Page 301. * 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominiurn Declaration for Sunny Park North Condominiums recorded January 7, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 549, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, famitial status or national origin. And Amended by Amendment recorded January 15,1982 in Book 419 at 847. ~ 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 50. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement Agreement rdcorded February 13, 1997 as ~ Reception No. 401780. ) 7. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 96-54, Series of 1996 by The Board of County Commissioners recorded March 3, 1997 as Reception No. 402214. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Maintenance, Indemnification, and Hbld Harmless ) ' recorded August 16, 2000 as Reception No. 446146. I Bil 't 7 11 3 1 12 ' ret-< 2 4 Â·, 13</i Ditajele F Di_.1--0-rrt.k J., 6LL Ic E- f o bo % 9/1 ~1.5 Â·op,u.~_ J CD 3 le/ 3-, 2 41 - 6.- Â·Â· 3'4. 1 44 QUIT-CLAIM DEED |KIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, grantors, of County of PITKIN, State of CO, eby QUIT-CLAIM to ,RTIN J. LICHTERMAN JR. and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN, grantees, of , TN )ose address is: 2944 GARDENS WAY MEMPHIS TN 38111 11 ~he sum of TEN AND NO/DOL~ARS and other good and valuable the following described tract of )1 in PITKIN County State 'of Cg: : f : 1 ! UTH CONDOMINIUM UNIT, LOT 6, SUNNY PARKNORTH CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO k MAP THEREOF FILED FOR RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 50 AND ACCORDING TO ~ CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE I AND AMENDED JANUARY 15,1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE 849. it ~NESS, the hanpl of said g~antors, this 25th day of January, A. D., 2001 , kINLAXCHANGE ~DINGS OF AGPEN LLC 11 ATE OF COLORADO )SS. LINTY oF PITKIN i foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24TH day of JANUARY, 2001, JOY S. HIGENS, PRESIDENT OF PITKIN EXCHANGE INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, NAGER OF PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED BILITY COMPANY. -,Â¥-C='*Sk 1 /4360..? Â·Pwrd I Priscilla Dawn Prohl / Notary Public : )Â· 1 410-'O,1 Â¢y Commission Expires 6/25/2003 43'' pr*24**0Ad_ y 0 601 E. Hopkins 8 1441 9 Aspen, CO 81611 H i DAWN ; Notary Public ~<ef PROHA ~~* Â· : .TS commission expires: 7 :. . I 92-0 1 #9k@ 00'uedsv sup'doH.3 L09 Cooz/GZ/9 seJ!dx3 UOISSIWWOO AIN , Otlqnd Â£'eloN / 140Jd l.140.81110*Pd 1 Return to: KAY AND MARTIN LICHTERMAN 2944 GARDENS WAY MEMPHIS, TN 38111 ATTACHMENT K 401780 02/13/ 1997 02:50P PG 1 OF 5 REC DOC NOT )SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 0.00 I EASEMENT AGREEMENT I THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this and entered into this | 04 day of ) 2,6,; !99-hg=emb~,4@94, by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, a body corporate and politic, Grantor, and RICHARD I H. WAGAR, an individual whose address is c/o 601 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 104, I Aspen, Colorado 81611; BUD HICKMAN and CONNIE HICKMAN, whose address is 517 Park Circle, South Unit, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Grantees. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by 1 this reference; and WHEREAS, Grantees are the owners of certain real property located in Pitkin I County, Colorado, which is adjacent to Grantor's real property, and which is more fully described as Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision; and WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to grant a non-exclusvie easement to Grantees for the purpose of landscaping and maintaining the existing parking improvements located on Grantor's property. and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good ) acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. a. Grantor hereby grants to Grantees a non-excluse easement for a portion of Parcel #3 as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", which easement may be utilized i for landscaping purposes, including the planting of woody plants, bushes and ground cover, and for maintenance of said landscaping and existing parking area. b. The easement granted herein shall be deemed a permanent easement constituting a benefit to Grantees' real property and shall be deemed to run with the land. 2. Use of Easement. The easement granted herein shall be used soley for the purposes described above and for purposes reasonably necessary and incidental thereto. In the event of any alleged violation of the permitted use of the easement granted herein, Grantor shall provide written notice thereof to Grantees, and Grantees shall correct any such violation within thirty (30) days of such notice. In the event Grantees do not promptly correct such violation, Grantor shall be entitled to injunctive relief and damages, if any, as well as an award of all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith. 3. Miscellaneous. a. Any additional improvements to the existing parking area shall be reviewed and approved by the Pitkin County Land Manager prior to commencement. . I / 401780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 2 OF 5 b. Grantees shall obtain and maintain in effect casualty and liability I insurance covering Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easements in amounts an additional insured. Grantees shall indeminfy and hold Grantor harmless form any reasonably acceptable to Grantor, with Grantees' insurance policy naming Grantor as and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages and costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, which may be asserted against or incurred by Grantor as a consequence of this grant of easement or Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easement. c. This Easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. This ) Easement shall be a burden upon Grantor's real property and a benefit to Grantees' real property, constitutes an interest in real property and shall be deemed to run with the land. This Easement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of ) the State of Colorado. Venue for any dispute arising hereunder shall be in the District Court of Fitkin County, Colorado. 4. NOTICE: This property is subject to the Partial Consent Decree in the United States District Court, For the District of Colorado, United States of America v. Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp.. et al, No. 89 C 1802, recorded in Book 777 at Page 910 of the real property records of Pitkin County. ) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Easement Agreement is entered into the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: I Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado \ /4 07 4311fTuite, Chairman STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) On this l 06- day of 12.4 rbut,1/1 , 1997, before me persouplly- appeared Bill Tuite, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to tj,e'4(iu,ing.0,*,4 instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deaA+0106 -%c /3426#EE#Jo:'4' WITNESS my hand and official seal. 4. , My commission expires: 2- ~2-6 < 9X --- - -40 02/13/1997.02:50P PG 3 OF 5 ACCEFYXi#~t / 111/ . L. t Bud Hickman I tonnie Hickman ) STATE OF COLORADO ) I ) SS COUNTY OF PrrKIN ) ) On this /382 day of A56'Zaâ‚¬,24 , 1997, before me personally ) appeared Richard H. Wagar, known to me to be dle person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal /// .'., 7-2(6445 , >ZU~L~*~J TA ~2~2:I~4 Notary Public -AN:EÂ· < t<'%08 L\t'.Â·/~ i My commission expirns: 3Â£0-4, 8 )1-00 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) Sis COUNTY OF PrrKIN ) On this B f' day of 9â‚¬4Â¥'-24431 , 1997, before me personally appeared Bud Hickman, known to me to be the Derson whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. '9114>2 0 ->Â»Lu 3..>xz.6,--14>224.â‚¬f., Notary Public Z.. S \.'%8 L\04>1 f ; My commission expires: JleÂ» 95 2-00 a 1.39.....1.Â«+ ...9 4 - ..'..'. ~01780 52/13/1997 02:50P PG 4 OF 5 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF FITKIN ) On this /387 day of 72*n,44,2-y , 1997, before me personally appeared Connie Hickman, known to me to be Â£he person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executd the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 3 2*-0-t :S Notary Public f L \ 83 L\ O / s 1 My commission expires: 3 UMLL . 1123 0 0 t /4.... ......49 -6,4,--77- cÂ°ts>' j\bocc\agreement\wagarras 401780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 5 OF 5 EXHIBIT A Parcel #3 A parcel of land situate in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being more particularly described as follows: Beginning ata No. 5 rebar and plastic cap LS. 15710 at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado thence along a line described in Book 466 at Page 302 of tile records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder N.38Â°00'00"E. a distance of 40.37 feet; thence departing said line N.88Â°37'09"E. a distance of 71.54 feet; thence along a line 30 feet Westerly of and parallel with the constructed centerline of Park Circle 110.28 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius 247.89 feet, a central angle of 25Â°29'18", and subtending a chetÂ·d bearing S.09 Â° 54'00"W. a distance of 109.37 feet; thence N.46Â°16'14"Wa distance of 107.35 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 6439 square fee4 more or less. ATTACHMENT L <*4 ENCROACHMENT LICENSE I THIS AGREEMENT is made this ~~ day of October, 2000 and is granted by Smuggler Racquet Club (" Smuggler") to the Rich Wagar ("Wagar"). RECITALS P k , WHEREAS, Wagar desires to obtain from Smuggler a license as delineated in Exhibit A i hereto which crosses over and across land owned by Smuggler; and 1 WHEREAS, Smuggler is willing to grant a license to Wagar in accordance with the terms k and provisions hereof. F WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. Smuggler hereby grants to Wagar for use by Wagar an exclusive landscaping license (the "License") across certain areas of land owned by Smuggler as more fully t I described in Exhibit A hereto ("Licensed Area"). 2. Use. Use under the License shall be for landscape features installed by Wagar which encroach onto property owned by Smuggler. Usage of the License shall automatically and i immediately cease upon termination of this License in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Wagar agrees to maintain the Licensed Area at his sole cost and expense. No lands of Smuggler may be used to access the Licensed Area and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over any other lands of Smuggler. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement and the right of Wagar to utilize the Licensed Area shall commence on the date of this Agreement until one year thereafter. E )... 0 .1. baâ€žâ€žluâ€¢.:'. ul...1.A..--Â·-:i'.Il...1,-2Â·.-_:2211...2,1~'...1.-Â·.rÂ·:U=...../-.LU...._.....lh..,hi ~00.4=6.'~ilâ€žÂ·aa--U......IN.AA&.I F 4. Insurance. Wagar shall cause Smuggler to be named as a loss payee beneficiary on his homeowner's liability insurance policy. Provided, however, that the full extent of Smuggler' s 1 rights under that policy shall be limited to the extent of any claims against Wagar by reason of Wagar' s use of the Licensed Area and shall not extend to any other payment for loss Wagar may incur on his Property. 2 5. Notices. Notices and other communications which may be given, or are required to be given hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed given to a party when delivered personally or when deposited in the United States mail with sufficient postage affixed and addressed to such party at the respective address shown below: E Smuggler: P- Smuggler Racquet Club 1000 Matchless Drive r P.O. Box 8788 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Wagar: I Rich Wagar i Rich Wagar Associates, LLC 601 East Hyman Avenue ' Aspen, Colorado 81611 6. Miscellaneous. 1 , A. The failure o f Smuggler to insist upon the strict performance of any MA>.1. I provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to serve Fl..â‚¬:-'- }44 08 any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment for the future 02)99Â· E. lf; h ~42: Eft of any such provision. B. This Agreement may not be amended, nor may any rights hereunder be waived, except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto. 6 2 i 483. i - 1 1 F C. The interpretation, enforcement or any other matters relative to this I Agreement shall be construed and determined in accordance with the laws of the State of I Colorado. D. All the provisions of this Agreement, including the benefits and burdens ) created thereby, shall not run with the land and this Agreement may be recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County. E. All provisions of this Agreement inure to the benefit of and are binding ) upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. The Wagar shall not be entitled to assign this License without written consent of Smuggler I which may be withheld for any reason whatsoever. F. Wagar shall pay $100.00 for the one year granting of this License. I Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as the day and year first above written. Smuggler Racquet Club I V#Ad=fÂ» By: azt{Zrw e â‚¬124 I Print Name: /4 A +Li q v ck f Ir , lic~ 0-tr ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. I COUNTY OF PITKIN ) . The foregoing Trail LiceiAe was acknowledged before me this 4-4 day of:Octut=r, 2000 by A/n-TH-iloal 8*71% as 02.29(02,07 of Smuggler Racquet Club. I WITNes Iqy~%46*ficial seal. /.0 6 k: .6 9 J ...O 1 'C r . igE r 9 311= 5 8, 7- - .1 0 i 3 /O z Notary Public My Commission Expires i I STATE OF 601$4RAD@,./) AR 101 ,/03;Â¢tt.Â·,Plt'%,1 b . ) SS. L COUNTY OF PITKIN ) t - F 1 The foregoing Trail License was acknowledged before me this 24 day of October, 2000 : pla f by Rich Wagar. WITNESS my and official seal. My commission expires: 004Â« *QiA R P A My Commission Expires Notary Public ) 10/21/2002 M:\cfreeman\AVH\Misc\wagar.license.wpd f: t 4 }tÂ» '%4 'Â· 1 '- V, Ot Li h'Â· Â· du' iÂ·L, 1,~1...11-kÂ·.124ub.i.~..kh.UU,426-p; h 1u#SM#*W11.* W*...+4â€¢4â€¢~â€¢, 6.-bil'. STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC . Planning â€¢ Urban Design Landscape Architecture I Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 17 November 2003 FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com ) Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner I City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 - Re: Request for Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle I Dear Chris and Community Development Staff: On behalf of Rich Wager, along with Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, we are writing to I request that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide for a PUD ) Amendment, Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units ofthe Wagar/Detweiler property located at 517 Park Circle in Aspen. 1 As you may know, the duplex located at the subject property recently was involved in a ) fire that rendered the structure uninhabitable. The owners of the property wish to rebuild the structure as two individual detached units, which will be a benefit to the owners and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. This application requests an approval for this redevelopment ofthe property, pursuant to Section 26.445, Section 26.480, and Section 1 26.470.070 (A) (2) of the Aspen Land Use Code, as identified in the Pre-application I Conference Summary dated 12 June 2003. In this application, we have responded to the criteria in each of those sections. I We have also attached information regarding an easement agreement executed between the ) property owners and Pitkin County, which owns the abutting parcel to the North. Pitkin County has provided the property owners and, specifically Mr. Wagar, with the right to use the County property for landscape and access purposes. Mr. Wagar has asked Pitkin ) County if they would be willing to sell him the adjacent property that is the subject ofthe I easement agreement. Providing this additional property to the overall parcel might result , in a minor amendment to the PUD as proposed. However, since the Detweiler family is in great need o f moving forward on a replacement dwelling, both parties have decided to tender this application without the assumption of further availability ofthe Pitkin County parcel. PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner 17 November 2003 Page Two Ilook forward to an opportunity to present this application in the review process, and remain ready to answer any questions that you or the review boards may have. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: i A) Application B) Dimensional Requirements Form C) Land Use Code Standards Report D) Vicinity Map I IE) Proposed Lot Split Drawing F) Letter ofAuthorization from Detweiler/Burek G) Letter ofAuthorization from Wagar H) Preapplication Conference Summary, dated 12 June 2003 I) Richard Wagar Proo f of Ownership J) Burek/Detweiler Proof of Ownership K) Easement Agreement with Pitkin County K) Private Encroachment License with Smuggler Racquet Club APPLICATION Wagar/Detweiler PUD 17 November 2003 Applicants: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler, and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle in Aspen (PID# 2737-074-01-016/017) Zone District: R- 15 An application for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PIll)), Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units. Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street I Aspen, CO 816I1 970-925-2323 I ATTACHMENT A 'APPUCANT: 1 Naine Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle, Aspen (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2737-074-01-016/017 ) REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, LL Address: 200 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 925-2323 PlÂ«~Eer: Wagar, Detweiler/Burek Amendment to a PUD, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units Address: N/A Phone #: N/A ~ TYPE oF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): I U Conditional Use j Conceptual PUD j Conceptual Historic Devt , D Special Review Â® Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) D Final Historic Development O Design Review Appeal U Conceptual SPA O Minor Historic Devt I O GMQS Allolment O Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) O Historic Demolition 1Â® GMQS Exemption Â® Subdivision C] Historic Designation ) O ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream C] Subdivision Exemption (includes O Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam I,ake Bluff condominiumization) Expansion 1 Mountain View Plane ) O Lot Split U Temporaiy Use 0 Other: , U Lot Line Adjustment O Text/Map Amendment ) EXISTING CONDmONS: *scription of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ) The existing duplex was destroyed by a fire and is rendered uninhabitable. The properly is part of a previously established PUD for which established standards were adopted. ~ PROPOSAL: *scription of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) ~ The applicant wishes to subdivide the properly and reconstruct their homes as detached units. This requires an amendment to the PUD to allow a smaller minimum lot size within the overlay area. ~ Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 2.520 ) Â® Pre-Application Conference Summag Â® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement I Â® Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requimme[Its Form ) Â® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards Attachment B ) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Wager. Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek ) Location: 517 Park Circle ) Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet Lot Area: 19.166 square feet (approximately) for slope reduction ) (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) , Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Not determined ) Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: ) Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,160 Allowable: 5,380 Prqposed.- 4,236 - Lot 1 duplex duplex 4,249 -Lot 2 / 28 k Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 i Allowable: 28 1 Proposed: Access bldg. height: Existing: -NIA Allowable: 15 1 Proposed: 25 ft. ) On-Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed: Not ddermmed % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: W A Proposed: Not ddeximned % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required. 14/ A Proposed: Not deterininel Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: 25 Proposed: 15 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 CombinedÂ¥/R. Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 ) Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 ) Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. ) Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11,237 ) square feet. Attachment B-1 I DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM - Lot 1 Project: Wager. Detweiler PUD Amendment. Subdivision and GMOS Exemption ) Applicant: Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek ) Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: Rz-13 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet (fathering parcel) I Lot Area: Lotl=11,237 square feet ) (for the purposes ofcalculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number ofresidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 I Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Not determined Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: Proposed: duplex 4,236 4,098 ) Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 ft Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. On-Site park\ng: Existing: 2 Required: 1 Proposed: Midmum of 2 ) % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed: NIA % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A , Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: 25 Proposed: 10 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 CombmedÂ¥/R: Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the b associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11.237 square feet. a minimum front setback often (10) feet. and a minimum side yard setback of I five (5) feet on the north side. Attachment B-2 ) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM - Lot 2 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek I Location: 517 Park Circle I Zone District: Rz-1-5 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet (fathering parcel): Lot 2 = 11,428 square feet Lot Area: Lot 2 = 8.571 square feet. with slope reduction at 25% maximum (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leesable (sq/it): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number ofresidential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: 1 Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: 4 I Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: 1 Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing.- 5,760 Allowable: Proposed: duplex 3,959 4,098 ) Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 ft- Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. On-Site parking: Existing: 1 Required: 1 Proposed: Minimum of 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required. N/A Proposed: N/A I Front Setback (feety Existing: 15 Required: 15 Proposed: 10 Rear Setback. Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 25 , Comb\ned Ft. Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 Side Setback*. Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 ) Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. ) Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size for the PUD of 11,428 square feet. a minimum front setback often (10) feet. and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. I ATTACHMENT C I Introduction On April 12, 2003, a fire erupted in the duplex located at 517 Park Circle that left the structure dilapidated and uninhabitable. Rich Wagar owns and occupied one ofthe units, ) and Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek own and occupied the other unit. These two 1 families suddenly found themselves without a place to live. Needless to say, the owners would like to rebuild their homes and continue with their lives a soon as possible. However, rather than replace the previous duplex configuration on the site, the applicants wish to subdivide the property and build two detached single-family residences that have ) floor areas in accordance with the underlying R-15 zone district. The intent is to build two architecturally pleasing structures, which would contribute to their privacy and would enhance the general aesthetics ofthe neighborhood. ) The fire-damaged duplex was designed as an elongated two-story structure. It blocked ) viewplanes of Aspen Mountain, Shadow Mountain, and Buttermilk from Park Circle. These views represent amenities that can be considered a community benefit that would be restored with a two-lot configuration, especially considering the location at the base of ) Smuggler Mountain Road. The proposal would break up the mass and bulk ofthe duplex ) structure, and allow for development oftwo smaller structures that would enhance the visual quality ofthe Park Circle area for the community at large. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 1 Land Use Code Standards Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. Responses to Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.445.050 A. General Requirements 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character ofthe existing ) land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempted I from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed I development and will be considered prior to: or in combination with, the final PUD development plan review. * Response: This proposal supports the reaffirmed goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan * in that it will, "Enhance the character and charm of Aspen " By detaching the two units, , the overall aesthetic quality of the property will be improved, while exposing valuable viewplanes from Park Circle that are currently blocked. The prominent visual barrier posed by the duplex will be eliminated. , The proposed PUD amendment will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. It will improve it by enhancing the aesthetic and architectural quality of the neighborhood. The applicants wish to reconstruct separate residences that will incorporate defensible space between units to lessen the possibility offire destroying more than one unit Of such an unfortunate circumstance presents itself in the future). The applicants are also requesting GMQS Exemption pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070, which is addressed later in this application. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: ) The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all ) properties within the PUD as described in the General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 , above. The dimensional requirements ofthe underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review ofthe proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption I Land Use Code Standards Page 2 development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall I comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: I a) The character of, and compatibility with, expected future land uses in the ) surroun ding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics ofthe property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. I d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics ofthe property and the , surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: A. General. The proposed PUD amendment will allow the construction of two single- family units that will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. There are no natural hazards on the site. The applicant intends to utilize a small portion of steep slopes where development will be engineered to assure sound foundation construction. , The proposed development will create no further noise, trajfic, transit, or parking generation than did the previous duplex. Pedestrian circulation will be improved through the installation of public infrastructure in the right-of-wayfronting the two parcels. There are no identified historical resources on the property. B. Dimensional Standards. The proposed dimensional standards of the amended PUD are as follows: * Minimum lot size (square feet): 11,237 , Minimum lot width (feet): 75 Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential 10, Accessory 30 Minimum side yard setback (feet): 15 south sideyard; 5 north sideyard Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Residential 25, Accessory 25, Other 25 , Minimum height (feet): 25 Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 10 Percentage of open space required for building site: no requirement External floor arearatio: Same as R-15 zone district Section 26.710.050 C. Variances Requested. The following variances are requested as part of the PUD amendment: 1. A smaller minimum lot size as specified above. 2. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from 25 feet to 10feet. We believe that this is consistent with the front setbacks on other adjacent properties and allows for better utilization of the property. 3. Increasing the south sideyard setback to 15' and reducing the north sideyard setback to 5 feet on both lots. This will allow a greater separation between Lot 2 Wagar, Detweiler/Burek FIJI) Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 3 and existing residential development, while shifting both houses slightly toward the County easement granted to the property owners on the North. This also * allows for better utilization of the property. D. Front vard setback analysis. Attached is a setback analysis we have prepared in support of the front setback variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. The analysis , shows that there is little uniformity in the front setbacks along Park Circle. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However, a good number of these are less than tenfeet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. , We believe that this analysis supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will provide greater separation from the public areas of the tennis and cIubfacilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting ofthe principal mass ofthe building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities of the proposed PUD. E. Slope Reduction Analysis. The slope reduction analysis shows that areas of steep slopes on the proposed Lot 2 of the subdivision exceed 25% of the existing lot area. We have therefore reduced the lot area of Lot 2 by 25%for purposes ofcalculating allowable , floor area. For purposes of clarity, we have revised the dimensional requirements form into two sheets, onefor each ofthe lots to be created. Lot 2 has beenreduced by 2,857 s.f * to a lot area of 8,571 s.f for purposes of calculating floor area. After consulting with Sarah Oates regarding the appropriateness ofreassigningfloor area within the PUD, we , have averaged the allowable floor areas of Lot 1 and Lot 2, so as to obtain an equitable distribution for both property owners. This is reflected in the allowable and proposed jloor areas for each lot as shown on the two Dimensional Requirements Form sheets. A slope reduction analysis map is provided following this section. F. Curb Cut Changes. An additional change shows the existing driveway at Lot 1 being abandoned. Lot 1 will continue to take access through the easement provide by the County to Wagar. Lot 2 shows a new curb cut that is spaced 10 feet within the property line. The building envelopes created by the proposed setbacks are illustrated on the drawing provided as Attachment E. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the I proposed PUD and ofthe surrounding area. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek FIJI) Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 4 Response: The scale and massing of the proposed units will comply with the requirements of the underlying R-15 zone district and will compliment the character ofsingle-family residences that exist in the area. The encroachment of the existing duplex onto the adjacent Pitkin County Property will be eliminated upon reconfiguration of the property. The newly configured lots will result in a small increase in floor areafor each of the proposed detached units, which will be comparable to the allowable floor area on surrounding lots of equal size. 3. The appropriate number ofoff-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number ofcars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods ofuse, whenever joint use ofcommon parking is proposed. c) The availability ofpublic transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity ofthe proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Response: The new residential units will not require more parking spaces than previously provided. Current residential parking requirements of the land use code will be met on site. 4. The maximum allowable density within the PUD may be reduced ifthere exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density ofa PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: The PUD amendment will not create a greater demand on infrastructure and utilities than did the destroyed duplex. Adequate infrastructure currently exists to serve the proposed units. Additional pedestrian infrastructure will be provided along the Park Circle right-of-way fronting the parcels. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exist natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because ofground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 5 b) The effects ofthe proposed development are detrimental to the natural I watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water 4 pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area in the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features ofthe site. Response: There are no natural site features on the property that would deem the land unsuitable for development. No detriment to drainage, watershed or air quality will result , from detaching the two residences. ) 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased ifthere exists a b significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD maybe increased if: ) a) The increase in density serves one or more goals ofthe community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and ) there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern ) compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and ) expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Response: The applicants are requesting the ability to construct the same number ofunits that existed within the destroyed duplex. The applicants are willing to deed restrict the subdivided properties toprohibitfuture development of duplexes on either lotin elfort to maintain the current density of the area. C. Site Design. , The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity ofthe town ) are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption ) Land Use Code Standards Page 6 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces I and vistas. 4 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. ) 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and ) service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: The site plan of the proposed detached single-family residences will allowfor * enhancement of vistas and viewplanes by breaking up the visual barrier that is posed by , the existing duplex structure. The residences will be clustered and situated to maximize the lots and eliminate encroachment onto adjacent open space properties. , Emergency and service vehicle access will be improved to meet City standards. Pedestrian/ handicapped access will be incorporated as part of the final design. The applicant will submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to building permit submission. D. Landscape Plan. I The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure compatibility ofthe proposed landscape with the visual character ofthe city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features ofthe subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: ) 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment ofexterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. ) 2. Significant existing natural and made-made site features, which provide uniqueness ) and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: The existing vegetation on site is strictly ornamental. The applicant is willing , to replace the vegetation in equal quantity upon reconfiguration of the lots and the re- location of the detached units. There are no significant features on the site that require preservation. Some screen planting currently exists on the front public right-of-way. This planting would be relocated to provide space for a sidewalk Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 7 I E. Architectural Character It is the purpose ofthis standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient I use ofresources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility ofthe building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use o f materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character ofthe proposed development. The I proposed architecture ofthe development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character ofthe city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture ofthe property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative ofthe intended use, and respect the scale and massing ofnearby ) historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage ofthe property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use ofnon- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: As mentioned previously, the applicant intends to design the detached dwelling units to compliment the character of the surrounding area in accordance with City of , Aspen Residential Design Standards. The proposed structures will be oriented towards the south to allow for greater solar exposure. It is not anticipated that the removal of snow and ice will require significant maintenance on this property beyond that which was required previously with the duplex. F. Lighting. I The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure that the exterior ofthe development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: ) 1. Alllighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 1 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption ) Land Use Code Standards Page 8 Response: All lighting will be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards and the applicant will make every elfort to assure that lighting will not inteifere with adjoining * streets or lands. The Applicant has committed to incorporating lighting that that will not divert undue attention to the property. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit ofall development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design ofthe common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character ofthe proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features ofthe property, 1 provides visual reliefto the property's built form, and is available to the mutual I benefit ofthe various land uses and property users ofthe PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner I within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. ) 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through al legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance ofopen spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. , Response: Thereis noincorporationofcommon park, open space, or recreation areain the PUD amendment proposal. However, the proposed development will move further away from existing open space, which will preserve the viewplanes associated with that parcel. H. Utilities and Public facilities. I The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue I burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following. ) 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by necessary improvements at the sole cost ofthe developer. ) 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided ) appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek FIJI) Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 9 Response: The proposed PUD amendment will have no greater impacts on public utilities and/or facilities than did the duplex structure. Adequate services currently exist in the \ area. Access and Circulation. i The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation ofthe development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a or other area dedicated to public or private use. public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, ) 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or development. such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the 3. Areas ofhistoric pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendation ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific A plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure I appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. \ Response: The proposed development will continue to provide adequate access from Park Circle, which is a public road within the City of Aspen. No public trails or easements are proposed a part of this application. However, sidewalks * will be installed in the Park Circle right-of-way abutting the property. 2. Resnonses to Section 26.480.050 Subdivision A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive I Plan. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 10 b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Request: As mentioned previously, the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan by improving the overall aesthetic quality of the area. It is not anticipated that this development proposal will affect the future development of the surrounding area in a negative way. The subject parcel is the largest lot in the PUD overlay district. Theminimumlot size as requested inthe PUD amendmentwillbe 11,237 square feet, which will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding lots in the district. The request for jloor area allocation in accordance with the R-15 zone district is entirely in accordance with the existing character of the area and the City ofAspen * Land Use code. 3. Responses to Section 26.470.070 (A)(2) GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units , The reconstruction ofdemolished units shall be exempt. An exemption request that includes a request for an extension ofthe three year deadline on reconstruction of demolished dwelling, hotel and lodge units shall be accompanied b an improvement survey 1 of the structure. No demolition shall occur until the Community Development Director I has verified the accuracy of the improvements survey. The exemption for reconstruction of a demolished unit is available only upon a finding of compliance with the following standards. ) a. An applicant may propose to demolish and then delay the reconstruction ofexisting dwelling, hotel or lodge units. b. The applicant shall verify, by letter submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, the number of existing legal units on the property prior to ) demolition and shall agree that reconstruction will occur pursuant to terms ofthis Section. c. Reconstruction shall occur within five (5) years of demolition, unless an extension ofthis deadline is granted by the City Council for good cause. ) d. Any building that is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same parcel or on a contiguous parcel owned by the applicant, unless it is determined that reconstruction shall be permitted off-site pursuant to Section 26.520.020 (D). Response: The applicants do not wish to delay the reconstruction of their units. Redevelopment is intended to occur within one year. The applicants will send verification to the Community Development Director that two legal units were built on the property. The applicants do not propose to construct more than two single-family residential units. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 11 ' ATTACHMENT C ' Introduction On April 12, 2003, a fire erupted in the duplex located at 517 Park Circle that left the structure dilapidated and uninhabitable. Rich Wagar owns and occupied one of the units, ~ and Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek own and occupied the other unit. These two families suddenly found themselves without a place to live. Needless to say, the owners ' would like to rebuild their homes and continue with their lives a soon as possible. I However, rather than replace the previous duplex configuration on the site, the applicants wish to subdivide the property and build two detached single-family residences. The intent is to build architecturally two pleasing structures, which would contribute to their privacy ~ and would enhance the general aesthetics ofthe neighborhood. The fire-damaged duplex was designed as an elongated two-story structure. It blocked viewplanes of Aspen Mountain, Shadow Mountain, and Buttermilk from Park Circle. These views represent amenities that can be considered a community benefit that would be I restored with a two-lot configuration, especially considering the location at the base of Smuggler Mountain Road. The proposal would break up the mass and bulk ofthe duplex structure, and allow for development oftwo smaller structures that would enhance the visual quality of the Park Circle area for the community at large. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption I Land Use Code Standards Page 1 Land Use Code Standards Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. Responses to Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.445.050 I A. General Requirements 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character ofthe existing i land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempted I from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to: or in combination with, the final PUD development plan review. \ Response: This proposal supports the reajfirmed goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan " in that it will, "Enhance the character and charm of Aspen. By detaching the two units, the overall aesthetic quality of the property will be improved, while exposing valuable viewplanes from Park Circle that are currently blocked. The prominent visual barrier posed by the duplex will be eliminated. The proposed PUD amendment will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. It will improve it by enhancing the aesthetic and architectural quality of the neighborhood. The applicants wish to reconstruct separate residences that will incorporate defensible space between units to lessen the possibility offire destroying more than one unit (ifsuch an unfortunate circumstance presents itself in the future). The applicants are also requesting GMQS Exemption pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070, which is addressed later in this application. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: I The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all I properties within the PUD as described in the General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 above. The dimensional requirements ofthe underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review ofthe ) proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption I Land Use Code Standards Page 2 I development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, expected future land uses in the surrounding area b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics ofthe property and surrounding area such as I steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: The proposed PUD amendment will allow the construction oftwo single-family units that will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. There are no natural hazards on the site. The applicant intends to utilize a small portion of steep slopes \ where development will be engineered to assure soundfoundation construction. The proposed development will create no further noise, trajfic, transit, or parking generation j than did the previous duplex. Pedestrian circulation will be improved through the installation of public infrastructure in the right-of-wayfronting the two parcels. There are j no identified historical resources on the property. The proposed dimensional standards of the amended PUD are as follows: Minimum lot size (square feet): 11,237 * Minimum lot width (feet): 75 Minimum front yard setback (feeO: Residential 25, Accessory 30 Minimum side yard setback (feet): 10 ' Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Residential 10, Accessory 5, Other 20 Minimum height (feet): 25 Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 10 Percentage of open space required for building site: no requirement External floor area ratio: Same as R-15 zone district Section 26.710.050 Note: The only variationfrom the R-15 zone district (and the existing PUD overlay) that is requested by the applicants, is a smaller minimum lot size as specified above. The building envelopes created by the standard setbacks are illustrated on the drawing * provided as Attachment E 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character ofthe I proposed PUD and of the surrounding area Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption I Land Use Code Standards Page 3 \ Response: The scale and massing of the proposed units will comply with the requirements ofthe underlying R-15 zone district and will compliment the character of single-family residences that exist in the area. The encroachment of the existing duplex onto the adjacent Pitkin County Property will be eliminated upon reconfiguration of the property. The newly configured lots will result in a small increase infloor areafor each of the proposed detached units, which will be comparable to the allowable floor area on surrounding lots of equal size. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on i the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods ofuse, whenever joint use ofcommon parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/orthe commitment to utilize : automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity ofthe proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. j Response: The new residential units will not require more parking spaces than previously * provided. Current residential parking requirements of the land use code will be met on , site. 4. The maximum allowable density within the PUD may be reduced if there exists I insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: The PUD amendment will not create a greater demand on infrastructure and j utilities than did the destroyed duplex. Adequate infrastructure currently exists to serve * the proposed units. Additional pedestrian infrastructure will be provided along the Park , Circle right-of-way fronting the parcels. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced ifthere exist natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density ofa PUD may be reduced if. a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption I Land Use Code Standards Page 4 b) The effects ofthe proposed development are detrimental to the natural i watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water , pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the I surrounding area in the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. \ Response: There are no natural site features on the property that would deem the land unsuitable for development. No detriment to drainage, watershed or air quality will result from detaching the two residences. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased ifthere exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and - with the site's physichl constraints. Specifically, the maximum density ofa PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specifi c area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site' s physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and I there exists no negative physical characteristics ofthe site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern 1 compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. * Response: The applicants are requesting the ability to construct the same number ofunits that existed within the destroyed duplex. The applicants are willing to deed restrict the subdividedproperties toprohibitfuture development of duplexes on either lotin e#ort to maintain the current density of the area C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is conwlimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, ) and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with I the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual b interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town ) are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Wagar, Detweiler/Bunk PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption 1 Land Use Code Standards Page 5 ' 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces I and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: The site plan of the proposed detached single-family residences will allowfor j enhancement of vistas and viewplanes by breaking up the visual barrier that is posed by the existing duplex structure. The residences will be clustered and situated to maximize the lots and eliminate encroachment onto adjacent open space properties. Emergency and service vehicle access will be improved to meet City standards. Pedestrian/ handicapped access will be incorporated as part of the final design. The * applicant will submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to building ~ permit submission. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure compatibility ofthe proposed landscape with the ~ visual character ofthe city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features ofthe subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the 4 following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and made-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: The existing vegetation on site is strictly ornamental. The applicant is willing , to replace the vegetation in equal quantity upon reconfiguration ofthe lots and the re- location of the detached units. There are no signijicantfeatures on the site that require preservation. Some screen planting currently exists on the front public right-of-way. This , planting would be relocated to provide space for a sidewalk Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption I Land Use Code Standards Page 6 E. Architectural Character It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and ' visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility ofthe building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes ~ which may significantly represent the character ofthe proposed development. The I proposed architecture ofthe development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture ofthe property, represent a character suitable I for, and indicative of the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage ofthe property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and t appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. j Response: As mentioned previously, the applicant intends to design the detached dwelling units to compliment the character of the surrounding area in accordance with City of Aspen Residential Design Standards. The proposed structures will be oriented towards the south to allow for greater solar exposure. * It is not anticipated that the removal of snow and ice will require significant maintenance on this property beyond that which was required previously with the duplex. F. Lighting. The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure that the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 1 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption ) Land Use Code Standards Page 7 Response: All lighting will be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards and the applicant will make every ejfort to assure that lighting will not intedere with adjoining streets or lands. The Applicant has committed to incorporating lighting that that will not divert undue attention to the property. 1 G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for I the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design ofthe common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character ofthe proposed development, considering I existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features ofthe property, provides visual reliefto the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number ofyears) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through al legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance ofopen spaces, recreation areas, and shared ) facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or I industrial development. Response: Thereis noincorporation of common park, open space, or recreation areain ' the PUD amendment proposal. However, the proposed development will move further * away from existing open space, which will preserve the viewplanes associated with that H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the ) development shall comply with the following. 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by I necessary improvements at the sole cost ofthe developer. ) 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek FIJI) Amendment and GMQS Exemption ) Land Use Code Standards Page 8 Response: The proposed PUD amendment will have no greater impacts on public utilities , and/orfacilities thandidthe duplex structure. Adequate services currently exist in the area. I Access and Circulation. The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access I and circulation ofthe development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, I or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the I development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendation ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific I plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under 1 private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. , Response: The proposed development will continue to provide adequate access from Park Circle, which is a public road within the City of Aspen. * No public trails or easements are proposed a part of this application. However, sidewalks will be installed in the Park Circle right-of-way abutting the property. ) 2. Responses to Section 26.480.050 Subdivision A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: ) a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Wagar, Detweiler/Burel, FIJI) Amendment and GMQS Exemption I Land Use Code Standards Page 9 b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character ofexisting land I uses in the area c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Request: As mentioned previously, the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan by improving the overall aesthetic quality of the area. It is not anticipated that this development proposal will qffect the future development of the surrounding area in a negative way. The subject parcel is the largest lot in the PUD overlay district. Theminimum lotsizeas requested inthe PUDamendmentwillbe 11,237 , square feet, which will not adversely ajfect the future development of surrounding lots in ~ the district. ) 3. Res]}onses to Section 26.470,070 (A)(2) GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units I The reconstruction of demolished units shall be exempt. An exemption request that I includes a request for an extension ofthe three year deadline on reconstruction of ~ demolished dwelling, hotel and lodge units shall be accompanied b an improvement survey ofthe structure. No demolition shall occur until the Community Development Director I has verified the accuracy ofthe improvements survey. The exemption for reconstruction ) ofa demolished unit is available only upon a finding ofcompliance with the following standards. a. An applicant may propose to demolish and then delay the reconstruction ofexisting ) dwelling, hotel or lodge units. b. The applicant shall verify, by letter submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, the number of existing legal units on the property prior to demolition and shall agree that reconstruction will occur pursuant to terms ofthis I Section. c. Reconstruction shall occur within five (5) years of demolition, unless an extension ofthis deadline is granted by the City Council for good cause. d. Any building that is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same I parcel or on a contiguous parcel owned by the applicant, unless it is determined that I reconstruction shall be permitted off-site pursuant to Section 26.520.020 (D). Response: The applicants do not wish to delay the reconstruction of their units. Redevelopment is intended to occur within one year. The applicants will send verification to the Community Development Director that two legal units were built on the property. , The applicants do not propose to construct more than two single-family residential units. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption ) Land Use Code Standards Page 10 Ozi <B 33 6 ..: ATTACHMENT D /. 1 . /'Â· ~Â·. Â·48:5,0,9~313~2ffÂ»3-573:Â»4-' E<At De.+1 .... . ,i.' 'i:i.. /1 lilill/li NÂ©/107 0, 1 ,~ '~Â·?<5Â·f. 1.~.1 ,<2:,5/.-534.~by< ~ Eli j..00}1945-I>%246*fÂ«Â» 2 43\ Clift{}/93.>2349Â» ,~*St END PROP-1 /- ib ll, OCH 1 5 1 . 4 14,44,~ /+ / L.-91*=F. 1 *13Â© O/ + POF 1 / - - 'lit;'1!11!11*11'1111111" 5 ,1.1 I hi 03 -LI-_~1~-;4-< VA \ 4 Ft / Cofi ) k Â·-V + , /1*42**~I, vp Tlf&- 1 1, 1/laillit 1 + ~: 72~ 1.233/ 33;29/ m-p*Ml 01 +,0 - lu / miltil '11 /Â£-Aâ‚¬G .W,l/WU #l /#At iiI E GIZON- REP .r Nf:52-:359 ~ + O ccrd'' 11 Â»v/, 1 21'' /, 7 k>* b / 64 /" /x - if A , 0 0 -4 ne,<N Â·7// 1" i, 4 074Â· w 0 /.4 // " 1 .1 1 r + A\43 '04,4//# 141/ 72 2< 4 -L/Â» 1 063 , 1 /9 b 7 0 4 9 24 V // I i., 00 / .- 1 -0. L ) 7 M / " , N ~7/8 Le/// OR /F+4 1 \\% a e . - 1 / Ch. 0 5,(P '6'241<rk r Â£37 . AP 434.1.11 W . W *543> I y C GA4 =0 0,// 0 Ii<:* :, ,ill ' --4--?-Â·r---3 L>11 11 4 17 N + Wagar, DetweilerIBurek PUD Vicinity Map (not to scale) i i Un; lywaS C 1.127.>GO + C //27750 gEN + S'FAN C L \ L'SON ASSOC 1 VI EX, [IC / Planning â€¢ i., mascupe .Â·11-[ hifec-mre 200 East Main Streetâ€¢Aspen.60 81611 1970)925-2323 ~ i tax: (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ info@scaplanning.corn 12' Wide Existing -n>~ Driveway to Remain ~ - l f - / Cr 1 ) / I 1 / I \ . 1/1 i PUD Request ~ \ Zoning Requirements ~ r / 25 o \ / 0 0 1 1 I /1 I 6 5. 0 /14 Lot 1 / 1 1- / \ 1 11,237.85sf Property l Calculated Floor Area= 4.236sf *.XX* , Proposed Floor Area=4,098sf 0 0 / 0 / 9 1 4-- 0 ~. Abandon Existing Curb Cut / -- - r. 0 // %- - / 0 1 09 / *.... 4 Re-Locate Existing Berm i and Existing Vegetation / W 5' 24' 1 l Lot 2 11,428.83sf Property / 0 -7 9 Slope Reduction Lot Area=8571.62sf Calculated Floor Area=3,959sf 10.4 Proposed Floor Area=4,098sf f -1.1 0 m .' 5' Wide Sidewalk /9 V / New 12' M-de Dnvewoy <I f C> / / 75' I Al I A' 10' / e 0\-_ 5 Wide Sidewolk / 34 [><1 Wagar-Detweiler Property 17 Nov. 2003 Revised-13 Jon 2003 Option C 1 1"=30' 0 10' 20' 30 45' 60' Y//////A V//////////1 7//////A /Al i 1 1 64 j j 'f~*Nt# Â« 40-4 Ch \ C 1 LA- /7 /2/0/040 1/4 0 14 1 f 1 1 37/ / Ph 4 \\1, 4 / bu--- -1 -- 1/ 9 ,. .---gl, 4% b <<\~24 LL--1 Â»\0 ic 1-V r r f KE C 1-1-1 p p 0 0 r 77 OF[-J / f 11 0 F ILÂ«--11Â«L-/4~ // -4 9 j 'f - DATE: SHEET: I) '., ( I \ 1 ..'J\.4,4.~I'll. J , 2 February 2004 2.,1 NIAIN>,li<11 I Wagar /Deteweiler PUD D.1 ' 1 N { 1 , H I M 1 Setback Analysis REVISIONS: ASPEN, COLORADO ~~ -- L--22 \\-\--.fJL--I--J f f. \ ~ STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC / 1 Planning â€¢ Landscape Architecture i =IL--13&. 200 East Main Streetâ€¢Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 * 21 fax: (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ info@scaplanning.com / i M 1 1 / / I / 1/ ~ Area of existing house and grading / /7 3 0 / / '-I / / i#41 - 1 / lili 11 1 J 1 11 f ' 4 ' u 1 1 1-1 4 . e.:,I /1 1 ) r d ..7 . f: 1-Ii.-Ill-, / | l / / 1 20%-30% slopes 898sf Wagar-Detweiler Property ~ 30% slopes or greater 2770sf 07 January 2004 27704*-=3219sf Slope Analysis 1 "=30' 11428.83* .25=2857.2 3219sf > 2857.2sf, therefore, 0 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' 25% reduction for floor area applies r///Â»pMI F////////Â» 1 r////4 r//////A 1/0////////J ATTACHMENT F 1 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staffpermission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development 0?UD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase ofthis project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincere~ 6- t (0 jit C rt- < Y Dirk Detweiler ' JÂ« )% 21/4 .A o , 4~ ~ E_gfA 1, LL' -v - Debora0*iek ATTACHMENT G 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase ofthis project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, - C A) Rith-Wagar ATTACHMENT H CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: James Lincit, 920.5095 DATE 6/12/03 PROJECT: 517 Park Circle REPRESENTATIVE: Brian McNellis OWNER: Rich Wager TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment, Subdivision (Lot Split ifreview standard "A" is removed as part ofInfill Code Amendments), GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction ofDemolished Units DESCRIPTION: The applicants would like to construct two (2) detached single-family residences in place of the duplex that burned down at 517 Park Circle. The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment to establish a minimum lot size on the parcel that it is small enough so that it could be subdivided into two (2) separate lots. Currently, the applicants could not apply for a lot split on the parcel because it has been previously subdivided as is prohibited by Lot Split Review Standard "A". However, the infill code amendments that are currently being reviewed by City Council are anticipated to remove Lot Split Review Standard "A". The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment on the property even though it under 27,000 square feet because it contains a PUD overlay zoning. Applicable Code Sections: 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 26.480 Subdivision 26.470.070(A)(2) GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units Review by: Staff for complete application, referral agencies for technical considerations, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council on PUD Amendment and Subdivision Application, City Council for final review of PUD amendment and Subdivision. Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance Planning Fees: $2520 Deposit for 12 hours of stafftime (additional staff time required is billed at $210 per hour) Total Deposit: $2520 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review ofapplication. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number ofthe representative authorized to act on behalfofthe applicant. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Pre-application Conference Summary. 5. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 6. Proof of ownership. 7. Letter of consent from all ofthe Condo Owners in the building to apply. 8. Proposed site plan that includes a parking plan. 9. Proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include the proposed dimensional requirements to be established in the PUD. 10. Proposed Subdivision Plat. 11. A written description ofthe proposal and a written explanation ofhow a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 20 Copies of the complete application packet (items 2-11) 12. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Process: Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application referred to applicable referral agencies. Applicant is given a public hearing date by Staff. Staff writes a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews case and makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council makes final determination on land use requests. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon fictual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. MA u g. 8 2003 , 4:24PM -- PITKIN COUNTY TITLE--Â·,4--e.-,--Â¥-â€¢=m-NJ ATTACHMENT I 1 0349123 09/30/92 111 16 Rma â€¢10.00 Bl< 690 79 33 - dl g.. Silvia Devim, Pltkin enty Clerk, Dee â€¢83.20 Â¢44*. - WARRANrY DEED . .12; 4,- THIS DNED, M=10 *0 29th dâ€ž or September m 92,60,4=n Ralph Melville and Marlan Malville of*be 0 Courly of Pitkin Ind Slain Of - Coic.*A..tor..8 Richard H. Wagar 1 4 . 15, Â·bose lege.~dre,sh 0155 Lone Pitle, Unite A-3, Aspen, Colorado 81611 40 of u,e Chmiy of Pitkin Ind Skag WlINES'ETH. Thâ€¢ 11,0 Grintor for and 07.hettin FIVE HUNDRED AND 100Â¥-'MZNHOUSANO ~ ~~, c-5 -iramarm.-th,inrie.hiihelijandi,~imt,lb-;,11 theinlplopeny logâ€¢014â€¢wid,514*mens. iran, 214â€¢11â€¢lyinli mdbeini,in lt- FORTY AND NO/100---------lmtdro.col, Â· 0 DOLLARS. thele=34'2'Uu,Mote,g ofwhickIEhettby -80'â€¢ledied, h. granlcd. 615<Ulad.*014*mkun.ryed. cndbyl2-11!Tras,kzsgrgrrt, buphuÂ« Couuy er Pitkin .nd Sme af Cotct.40 dest:16,4 0 M-m .Whs:L North Condominium Unit, h E' 2*LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, o B-- acco,Â·ding to the Map thereof filed fer recgrd* in Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and 8 according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982, in Book 419 4% Page 549 and amended January 15, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 847. Plikin County, Colorado / Mb-mby Intat 00*nvm,criÂ¥ 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado 81611 TOGRUER wit. 211 &Â£ dent,# me acrod*11=nts mid &,purvi.In,et wak'91=IMEIv. er M eny.be menahing. and rhe mversion mid teâ€¢mloni, mialoder utdicm.licien. Rati. Imelond prD{ht [hereotand â€¢JI ttle e=:12, right- 8112. int=-- claim d demprwd whâ€¢1,01Â¥â€¢r of the 17â€¢04 either h lâ€¢rw or â‚¬q*ey. 04 1, sod to tho :bet bâ€¢4,{mca pr,rn.ks. with Ihe lefedhirrs# and - - _ a. TO 1302 AND TO HOLD th: said prâ€¢mile, aboâ€¢, Wcdneft Ind deellaca.'â‚¬Ith ihe Ippu,18,1,0- 9=0 Ibe zignw, his h:In â€¢rd .,ims 0,ever. Anddle,18[10, *All. elf.klihclil, DI]dpenonâ€¢!,â€¢pmstntalks, docs Cal,Ininf, MN,0,4118.ar,641,2â€¢8aM.:Ot[hep=tr~I,Ishein:nÂ¢K =illu, 11:01*octime of,hetme:JIUM:,elly=yof these prescon. holl Â£11 6/10,4 oftbcptel*el *bovecoaT<Med, h=goed. 91]m, perfect,.biolug andidh.,ble,MgofÂ¥121:12=,10- Ill kesimple. 20411â€¢3 0-1{04. full ,*-t:r â€¢Ild!-M *011,ytogran{. bege!11. sell Weou,mhe gaae in g-ner aid Rorm d *re-i,J. ind ast Uâ€¢ i=â€¢ - Are an,1 sle- ft,tn oll R-r â€¢rid 00= glants. bugalâ€¢, alles. ling, 13â€¢814 8150597!~5~D. MoumDranceI aâ€¢dfubleâ„¢4 07 4,0,==kind 01,â€¢uâ€¢ 1-~ acce, 1. TheseÂ· easements, resâ€¢rvations, restric- e tions and other matters more particularly set forth in the Exhibit A attached 4 hereto and made a part hereof; AND EXCEPT' general real estate taxes for 1992 and 13 gubsequent yearl which, after adjustment and proration as of the day hereof, g al;irM:rA 172~dRUPINGUiggl;END-Ke.*0â€žFInalpMmlic, jaN'*t,nape,9,8,e.......ros-eo. ~ 0 , Mp,hety,g~,migni,ig,imitallâ€¢naneiypc:soNarfwulglully,1,imii:tbewboltormy,=:Ikivilbesulgul-mhrehalll,dudchpl-1. 66 24.. *e pl.1 *,ingUZZ,n, die ule of any gende,obliths -liah)â€¢ â€¢di uentler&. 1 DI WITNESS WHEREOS 11â€¢ enâ€¢le, h. egecâ„¢d 04% deed <, 14 d,le w ronhi.b<.0 15&2 '4Â«'*940* ,7, Â«AAnd. AA o .-1,<.v. ~R~*RALPT MELVILLE MARIAN MELVILLE , 1 - STATE OF COLORADo 0-4 Pitkin I . The fo,e,814 1051,1.rent *25 =1-114.4 before rr,Â· [la 29th , 4, ,< September , 1, 92 by Ralph Melville and Marlan Melville 4 My,-niâ€¢lon .4. 2/21/1993 40 , 19 Â·4100; my h- aud omcid le,1, 4 g.- ....:g â€¢U in D=/1.er. 111â€¢en (41,0 2 -- rke. 931Â£ Re,%7Â·84. WARRAN!Â¥PNED(E.-râ€¢.0.,p,kno...1 Diad- Publish,Pt. 9 1 W,=1 h .. D en â€¢ti. 00 90101 - 010, 191Â·2500 - - 140 AL L \AQ -3~s'V~ 'r. p..,83â€¢H ung=ke-1, I'ma=i=27'= ' ~ liu./ 001 r. 0, ,;BAug. 8. 2003 2 4:25PM~NPITKIN COUNTY TITLEU,Â¢5 0349123 09,30/92 11:14 499 *10.00 BK 6*0 FG 39 -6144 44~V . Silvia Davis, Pitlrin Cnty Clerk, Dog $53.20 - EXHIBIT A '.Sil To '' WARRANTY DEED ". 2. Right of the Proprietor of 8 Vein or Lode to extract and remove his *re therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, J t.â€žt I as reserved in United States Patent rwcorded May 20, 1949, in Book 174 at Page 171. 3. Restrictiont, which do not contain a forfeiture or raven:er clause, as contained in instrument recorded March 30, 1964, in Book 206 at Page 301. 4. Those covenunts. conditions, obligations, easements end restrictions which are a burden to the Condominium Unit described in Scheclue A, and set forth in the Condominium Declaration recorded J/nuary 7. 1982, in Book 419 at Page 547. 5. Those covenants, conditions, obligations, easements and restrictions whid, are a burden to the Condominium Unit described 1 n Schedule A, and ret forth in the Condominlum Declaration recordâ€¢d January 16, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 847. 6. Ten foot utility easement and 30 foor building set-back restriction as shown on Map for Lot 5, Sunny Park North (a Condominium) recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 50. , 4 . , , " C / ? , I. T . + C ' ..1 i: ~tittz -F~r , . 4 F.- , . b . a ' 4 t.. 181,4 1 Â¢ . . . , 1 ~?: ~. . 4,1 AIR#UÂ·r k. 2.4,-, 4 r ,% e .. r - a., . I ...' ..1, #14 --. 12'24 1~ Â· ... 9*6/2 1 t:r=iÂ· . . r I ' -... 4..0, i 19< .6 - 4 I . I, - - I - 4 P.. f. .4 4 . . 1 . I; , U , #L '47 7 , tr 411. , 3 4 1 DE. e 1 1 1Â» it-*6' - ATTACHMENT J . 1 24,56 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this January 30, 2001 Between MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN of the County of 51-\ 6 1 61 , State ofTN, GRANTOR, Â·AND DIRK DETWEILER and DEBORAH J. BUREK,GRANTEE 65 Join + 101Â»<n-4-5 whose legal address is : P.O. BOX 812, ASPEN, CO, 81612 of the County of PITKIN, State of CO WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm Unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: SOUTH CONDOMINIUM UNIT, LOT 6, i SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Map thereof filed for record in Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and according to the Condominlum Declarations recorded January 7,1982 in Bbok 419 at Page 544 and amended January 15, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 849. 1 I TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditamerIts and appurtenances thdreto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues Jnd profits thereof, and all the estate, I right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in laW or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises * above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his . heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inberitance, in law, in fee simple, ~j and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forih F on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND 2 FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceabie possession of the grantee, his heirs and fssigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The k singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. , 1 ~V~NESS WHERtbF the'brantor has executed this deed. / .' 1/ /3/4 4-Uh~*-0, t.4< CLA--- NIARTIN J. LI~!1*!3!MAN KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN I , 1 STATE OF ubvlf,-06-1' 0 1.00 ss ~ COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument('wjas acknowledged before me this , by MARTIN J. LICHTERIOIANand KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN. WITNESS my hand and offidal seal -23Lb//439 my commission expires: i ~ 1 ~Y GOIN#SSION EXPIRES AUG. $0,2004 , U 1 Ch 1-9 BILLOFSALE NOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS ICHTERMAN if the County of , State of TN (Seller), for and in consideration of Tel\J )OLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION to him in hand paid, at or efore the ensealing or deliver of these presents by DIRK DETWEILER and DEBORAH J. BUREK of ie County of PITKIN, State of CO the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has bargained and 'old, and by these presents does grant and convey unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives uccessors and assigns, the following property, goods and chattels, to wit: G SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO icated at 515 PARK CIRCLE, #S-6, ASPEN, CO 81611 O HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives, successors ~nd assigns, forever. The said Seller covenants and agrees to and with the Buyer, his personai ppresentatives and assigns to WARRANT AND DEFEND the sale of said Rroperty, goods and hattels, against all and every person or persons whomever. When used herein, the singular shall \clude the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all pnders. IN WITNESS H)~REOF, the Seller has executed this BILL OF SALE this 25 day of January, AA 1 A 31( 1.-Â¥]L- MARTIN J. UNUTERMAN. ' i Wl,-n lit Â£)0 1 /7-~heP~ el 4.- RAY WE#EMS LICHTERMAN 1 ~TATE OF ~UVKWL.,t ) SS: BOUNTY O ) 1 11 |he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j-t day of /l/hoâ€¢ul- , 2001 4 MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN 6~ Witness my hand and official seal. AP-JJÂ«- bly Commi .Â«Ii'.1011*;5*â€¢ne, 1004 ~ Notary/PublE j ssion expires: . li 1 1 il. 1 11 1 \ , 43 Recorded the day of , at o'clock m. Reception # Recorder By QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS DEED, Made this day of 31 HU~ r ~ EN) DE)(0) ~ , between BUD HICKMAN AND CONNIE HICKMAN Grantor, for the consideration of *** TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION *** in hand paid, hereby sells and quitclaims to i DIRK DETWEILER AND DEBORAH J. BUREK, AS JOINT TENANTS ~ P.O. Box 812 6 Grantee, whose street address ts City of Aspen , county 'of Pitkin , State of ColoradÂ© 8161,2 the following real property in the ~ County of PITKIN , and State~of Colorado, to wit: i SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF ;i~ ~ | also known as street and number 515 PARK CIRCLE, ASPEN, CO 81611 TOGETPER with all #ts appurtenances. The singutar number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. Signed as of the day and year first above written. 3 Caliv#Mt) B>If) HICKMAN , it. A OOM,4Â«y<-9 CONNIE HICKMAN State of Colorado > ) SS. County of PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowl edged before me this clay of ~1 M Q . r q 35 0â‚¬b / by BUD HICKMAN AND CONNIE HICKMAN 1 Witness my hand and officiql seak. t 414 f Lue Â¥47 coninission expires 19Â»1 .1 f Notary 1?Glic V ~GICE-L. JOHNSON e 4 NOTARY PUBUC K 1 Le=F COLORADO~ IMy Cummirein %4 ~ When recorded return to: Form No. QCD (Quit Claim Deed - 2/97) Q381101 , Q381101 0 :./ 1 Ej EXHIBIT A . PARCEL 15 2 ~ A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCFIBED AS ) FOLLOWS: ~ BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, WHENCE A NO. 5 REBAR AND ) PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 BEARS N. 09 1 DEGREES 27'35" E. A DISTANCE OF 226.95 FEET; 1 THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OP SAID LOT 6 98.27 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 112 1 DEGREES 36'37", AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING N. 45 DEGREES 14'31" E. A DISTANCE OF 83.20 FEET; | THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITI-I THE CONSTRUCTED CENTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE THE FOLLOWING 2 (TWO) COURSES: THENCE ~ 1) S. 34 DEGREES 42'29'" W. A DISTANCE OF 7.54 FEET; THENCE 2) S. 36 DEGREES 07'02" W. A DISTANCE OF 75.05 FEET; ~ THENCEN 52 DEGREES 00'00" W A DISTANCE OF 13.39 FEET TO THE POINT OFÂ· BEGINNING. ~ PARCEL 4 ~ A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MEIUDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ) FOLLOWS: ) BEGINNING AT A NO. 5 REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THENORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBD1VISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, ) STATE OF COLORADO; THENCE S 46 DEGREES 16'14"E. 107.35 FEET; ) THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE'CONSTRUCTED CENTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE 7.76 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, ) HAVING A RADIUS 247.89 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1 DEGREE 47'37" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD HEARINGS, 23 DEGREES 32'28" W. A DISTANCE OF 7.76 FEET TO A POINT ON ) THE NORTH LINE OF SAIb LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N 42 DEGREES 29'00" W. A DISTANCE OF. 110.27 FEET TO ~ THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ~ COUNTY OF PITKIN ~ STATE OF COLORADO. 1 1 A~Licâ€ž V . -D , r k. D 2.-~ tu & 4 9 ta *h Al Q LM. Co %14 C 2.- '. ' EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable. , 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to ~ penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20,1949 in Book 175 at Page 171. 3. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in instrument recorded March 30, 1964 in Book 206 at Page 301. ~ 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments. as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Sunny Park North Condominiums recorded January 7, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 549, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. And Amended by Amendment recorded January 15,1982 in Book 419 at 847. , 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 50. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement Agreement r@corded February 13, 1997 as Reception No. 401780. ~ 7. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligattons and alt matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 96-54, Series of 1996 by The Board of County Commissioners recorded March 3, 1997 as Reception No. 402214. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obijgations as set forth 'in Maintenance, Indemnification, and Hbld Harmless recorded August 16, 2000 as Reception No. 446146. 1 11 11 1 1 :1 l Itt 1 . 1-11 F Ft-rL / >u 6 - 31 / Â£ Def--u-At L v bl~6-0-Ca-k J. /1Â£ CL E f o boy ux- A>f- j LD 5 1 6 13-1 . cl 12 - 5,- AF*4 F , 1 Â¥ I. , ~gkay %22.3 - QUIT-CLAIM DEED ~KIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, grantors, of County of PITKIN, State of CO, eby QUIT-CLAIM to 4RTIN J. LICHTERMAN JR. and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN, grantees, of , TN 11 lose address is: 2944 GARDENS WAY MEMPHIS TN 38111 ~he sum of TEN AND NO/DOLhARS and other good and valuable the following described tract of Â¢ in PITKIN County.State'of C~: 0 1 UTH CONDOMINIUM UNIT, LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO k MAP THEREOF FILED FOR RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 50 AND ACCORDING TO ~ CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE ~ AND AMENDED JANUARY 15,1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE 849. 11 NESS the hand of said g;antors, this 25th day of January, A. D., 2001 50,35*44#AA kINÂ®<CHANGE ~~DINGS OF ASPEN LLC 11 . KTE OF COLORADO )SS. ILNTY OF PITKIN 3 foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24TH day of JANUARY, 2001, ~JOY S. HIGENS, PRESIDENT OF PITKIN EXCHANGE, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, pAGER OF PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED BILITY COMPANY. /1.,-\ I Â£703 P ulne$ Priscilla Oawn Prohl i Notary Publk ; ) ,Â· 1 Â·J/fl R py Commission Expires 6/25/2003 p~Â·>14Aj O f A (-1 4.4~ 601 E. Hopkins i Aspen, CO 81611 I, ;Sl ~,~21'otary public 4, Icommission expires: ' Â·,Â· 2.82 L 1,gl,9 00'ueds'V 12#'- suptdoH '3 89 Â£002/91/9 sejida uoISSILUU,100 XM Tlqnd kieloN / 140Jd UMB O 811!06!Jd 11 1 1 1 Return to: ' KAY AND MARTIN LICHTERMAN 2944 GARDENS WAY . MEMPHIS, TN 38111 ATTACHMENT K 401780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 1 OF 5 REC DOC NOT MILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 0.00 4 EASEMENT AGREEMENT ) THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this and entered into this | 0*k day of ) Rk, I 99-bÂ·De@/mbe.,4996, by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, a body corporate and politic, Grantor, and RICHARD H. WAGAR, an individual whose address is c/o 601 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 104, Aspen, Colorado 81611; BUD HICKMAN and CONNIE HICKMAN, whose address is 517 Park Circle, South Unit, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Grantees. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by ) this reference; and WHEREAS, Grantees are the owners of certain real property located in Pitkin ) County, Colorado, which is adjacent to Grantor's real property, and which is more fully described as Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision; and ) WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to grant a non-exclusvie easement to Grantees for the purpose of landscaping and maintaining the existing parking improvements located on Grantor's property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby ) acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. a. Grantor hereby grants to Grantees a non-excluse easement for a portion of Parcel #3 as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", which easement may be utilized ) for landscaping purposes, including the planting of woody plants, bushes and ground cover, and for maintenance of said landscaping and existing parking area. ) b. The easement granted herein shall be deemed a permanent easement constituting a benefit to Grantees' real property and shall be deemed to run with the I land. 2. Use of Easement. The easement granted herein shall be used soley ) for the purposes described above and for purposes reasonably necessary and incidental thereto. In the event of any alleged violation of the permitted use of the easement granted herein, Grantor shall provide written notice thereof to Grantees, and Grantees ) shall correct any such violation within thirty (30) days of such notice. In the event , Grantees do not promptly correct such violation, Grantor shall be entitled to injunctive relief and damages, if any, as well as an award of all costs and attorneys' fees incurred ) in connection therewith. 3. Miscellaneous. a. Any additional improvements to the existing parking area shall be reviewed and approved by the Fitkin County Land Manager prior to commencement. . I ~ 4*1780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 2 OF 5 b. Grantees shall obtain and maintain in effect casualty and liability ) insurance covering Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easements in amounts , reasonably acceptable to Grantor, with Grantees' insurance policy naming Grantor as I an additional insured. Grantees shall indeminfy and hold Grantor harmless form any ) and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages and costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, which may be asserted against or incurred by Grantor as a consequence of this grant of easement or Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easement c. This Easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the I parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. This ) Easement shall be a burden upon Grantor's real property and a benefit to Grantees' real property, constitutes an interest in real property and shall be deemed to run with the ) land. This Easement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of ) the State of Colorado. Venue for any dispute arising hereunder shall be in the District Court of Fitkin County, Colorado. ) 4. NOTICE: This property is subject to the Partial Consent Decree in the United States District Court, For the District of Colorado, United States of America v. ) Smuggler-Durant Mining Corp.. et al, No. 89 C 1802, recorded in Book 777 at Page ) 910 of the real property records of Fitkin County. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Easement Agreement is entered into the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: ) Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado 84 @7 4311fTuite, Chairman STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS I COUNTY OF PITKIN ) on this 1 06 day of 1kt' rulÂ¢b,/0| , 1997, before me personally- appeared Bill Tuite, known to me to be the peI'sdh whose name is subscribed to t.he~i.â€ž,â€ž instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and d#*1*0 10, 0,0% /Â·.124:=C....,0 "6 WITNESS my hand and official seal. I im:Alill:211*Qeli&).92/0/ /14-Â»4 L_-bIQ~KBMid //''V>','Â·' r 9 74' I -- My commission expires: 2- {2.-6 ~ 9T 02/13/1997.02:50P PG 3 OF 5 - ACSErTAN 3*RANTTERS.. H. - ar 6&4#7Uj Bud Hickman 8 lilf,-e YA>~A,y~~~-,0 b Lonnie Hickman ) STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ) On this /38 day of &560â‚¬04.yz--7 , 1997, before me personally appeared Richard H. Wagar, known to me to be dle person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. /// .... ........,0. / # #VEL:/2.:./Pagill ' Via,Â£,6 6 0 ~0TA+~'~21 ) Notary Public E : B-':0 35; My commission expires: 30â€¢tz, 8 ,100 7 ... 0. 6 -Â·. 1/8 L\â‚¬74,1 1 7* 5. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) On this B f' day of 92.6ru444 , 1997, before me personally appeared Bud Hiclanan, Imown to me to be the f,erson whose name is subscribed to the ) within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act anddeed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 2<u D . 41-Â·.,, " .. -4Â·~*4 0 TA-kt'Â·.p , ..W -*-3.0- Notary Public My commission expires: 32,ir.Â£- â‚¬ ; 2-670 D ...VI, 7 - I ./ p- I -AS+. k ' C-\ w.Â·.1' ' 4, 9Â«0 ~01780 ,2/13/1997 02:50P PG 4 OF 5 . 5rATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF Fn'KIN ) On this /319 ru~~#1Â·/1 , 1997, before me personally dayof 94 appeared Connie Hickman, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executfd the same as his free act and deed. I WITNESS my hand and official seal. i::-t- b * 40Â·i- ---)Ai-*i.44.0â‚¬, 6.DlÂ£660.~---Â·Â·i:b:~ NOTAR;..% NotaIy Public , toÂ»*.6- 3G 3g 4..... 478 Li 0 / ~UKi, 0,-LD O0 I My commission expires: -: e 'Â·Â·Â·â€¢.Â·â€¢Â·~ 2 2 j\bocc\agreement\wsgar.eas E- - 401780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 5 OF 5 EXHIBIT A Parcel #3 A parcel of land situate in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being more particularly described as follows: Beginning ata No. 5 rebar and plastic cap LS. I 57I 0 atthe Northwesterly corner of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Fitkin, State of Colorado thence along a line described in Book 466 at Page 302 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder N.38Â°00'00"E. a distance of 40.37 feet; thence departing said line N.88Â°37'09"E. a distance of 71.54 feet; thence along a line 30 feet Westerly of and parallel with the constructed centerline of Park Cincle 110.28 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius 247.89 feet, a central angle of 25Â°29'18", and subtending a chord bearing S.09 Â° 54'00"W. a distance of 109.37 feet; thence N.46Â° 16'14"W adistance of 107.35 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 6439 square feet, more or less. - ATTACHMENT L 9-1 ENCROACHMENT LICENSE ) THIS AGREEMENT is made this i~ day of October, 2000 and is granted by Smuggler Racquet Club ("Smuggler") to the Rich Wagar ("Wagar"). ) RECITALS WHEREAS, Wagar desires to obtain from Smuggler a license as delineated in Exhibit A r hereto which crosses over and across land owned by Smuggler; and ) WHEREAS, Smuggler is willing to grant a license to Wagar in accordance with the terms and provisions hereof. p I WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements ) hereafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: f 1. Grant of License. Smuggler hereby grants to Wagar for use by Wagar an exclusive landscaping license (the "License") across certain areas of land owned by Smuggler as more fully , ) described in Exhibit A hereto ("Licensed Area"). I r 2. Use. Use under the License shall be for landscape features installed by Wagar Ii. ) which encroach onto property owned by Smuggler. Usage of the License shall automatically and I R L immediately cease upon termination of this License in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Wagar agrees to maintain the Licensed Area at his sole cost and expense. No lands 1 of Smuggler may be used to access the Licensed Area and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over any other lands of Smuggler. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement and the right of Wagar to utilize the Licensed ) Area shall commence on the date of this Agreement until one year thereafter, A Z ~r: 2...ty..:J..zi. .2,12121.:~.2.ti,aa-Â£.1.E-~~1,.:.-:d.,9t, .~rt,~,AL!.,1:t.m.~.~,L-UU,klka,Uk,~,46-,Dar,li..1 r 4. Insurance. Wagar shall cause Smuggler to be named as a loss payee beneficiary on his homeowner's liability insurance policy. Provided, however, that the full extent of Smuggler's 1 rights under that policy shall be limited to the extent of any claims against Wagar by reason of Wagar's use of the Licensed Area and shall not extend to any other payment for loss Wagar may incur on his Property. 5. Notices. Notices and other communications which may be given, or are required r to be given hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed given to a party when delivered ) personally or when deposited in+ the United States mail with sufficient postage affixed and I. , addressed to such party at the respective address shown below: Smuggler: ) Smuggler Racquet Club ) 1000 Matchless Drive ~ P.O. Box 8788 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Wagar: *c ) Rich Wagar Rich Wagar Associates, LLC 601 East Hyman Avenue 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 tb :...2 6. Miscellaneous. A. The failure of Smuggler to insist upon the strict performance of any ~ 1 provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to serve E- any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment for the future Er ) of any such provision. B. This Agreement may not be amended, nor may any rights hereunder be waived, except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto. 2 : . 4 #.,%.:,A.. 93 4.,Â·<.Er.r 10., ,#.Ty,42â€ž,fÂ·<Â·f-ttit. >li' r ,'*',,'.~'r ef~ C. The interpretation, enforcement or any other matters relative to this Agreement shall be construed and determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. D. All the provisions of this Agreement, including the benefits and burdens # created thereby, shall not run with the land and this Agreement may be recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County. E. All provisions of this Agreement inure to the benefit of and are binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. The Wagar shall not be entitled to assign this License without written consent of Smuggler ) which may be withheld for any reason whatsoever. F. Wagar shall pay $100.00 for the one year granting of this License. Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as the day and year first above written. I - Smuggler Racquet Club 0.*:tja,ZE*:7 By: 0161Â©h- ar (322~b I Print Name: AÂ¢ A +4 9 4 04!- 1 12 , li<x. t-t-x IÂ»%/21 ./ Â¥ ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE 1 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) 432(8 MBER- ~ The foregoing Trail Licey#e was acknowledged before me this<1.4 day ofi)Â©*bar, 2000 by (Um+muled 731-7-25 as MR.29(Oe,OT of Smuggler Racquet Club. WITNE?S m.3.94Â·6fficial seal. . 6% '4. My: 42*lijjsio08%0903 2 0 : g ' :O 3 â€¢ Ct . - ta Â·Â· - idE r - a ..# Â·.. O 1 p :;6 Notary Public . 90...... 1, 4 ...Se 69 tvo &/--<12..2 My Commiss)on Expires 4/7/01 STATE OF CUIREAD 40Â·43 ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) t-6-7 The foregoing Trail License was acknowledged before me this 24 day of October, 2000 by Rich Wagar. WITNESS my and official seal. My commission expires: (SAL,WL,EG/)71ZA,4/64 ./0 :r My Commission Expires Notary Public fiell '4424 el { 10/21/2002 M:\cfreeman\AVH\Misc\wagar.license.wpd 4 200 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Stan E-mail: tanya@scaplanninq.com Clauson Web: www.scaplanning.com Phone: +1 970 925-2323 Associates, LLC Fax: +1 970 920-1628 lk==Ci TO: Scott Woodford From: Tanya Stevens Company. City of Aspen Date: 20 May 2004 Community Development Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split Phone: 920-5102 CC: O Urgent O For Review O Please Comment O Please Reply O Please Recycle â€¢Comments: Enclosed is a copy of the new plat show-g the approved lot split for the Wagar/Detweiler property. Please review and show any changes which n,ight be needed. The surveyor will record the nionuments when the plat has satisfied all requirements. Please donothesitate tocontact us, for we are glad to=,swer =Iy~estions that you may have. â€¢ Planning, Permitting, and Design Solutions for Communities and Private Sector Clients â€¢ : lilli 1 1 f Mor A LeE 590 tr-EstÂ»201100 FEE CODE Â«ker- A guepiuifpito-l - 334.111 4444 SUBDIVISION ~ LOT SPLIT EXEMPTION> PLAT OF kiT 1 + 1 30 CS< v LOTae, SUN-NUipikEINUETitÂ«DOMINIUMS TRACTS OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST, SIXTU- PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF ASPEN, ~P j COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO < Certificate of Ownership Title Certificate GRAPHIC SCALE The undersigned, o duly authorized representative of Pitkin County Title, Inc. registered Know all men by these presents that Dirk Detweiler and Deborah J. Burek being the owners, the mortgagee or lien 25 0 , to do business in Pitkin County, Colorado, hereby certifies that the person listed as holder of certain lands in the City and Town of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: owner on this map holds fee simple title to the real estate described hereon free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except fro the lien of the mortgagee named South Condominium Unit, Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums, according to the Map thereof filed for record in ( IN FEET ) / hereon. Although we believe the facts stated on this map are true, this certificate is Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982 in Book 419 1 inch = 20 ft. / not to be construed as an abstract of title nor an opinion of title, nor guarantee of at Page 544 and amended January 15, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 849. ~ title, and it is understood and agreed that Pitkin County Title, Inc. neither assumes nor will be charged with any financial obligation liability whatsoever on any statement Does hereby plat this real property under the name and style of the SUBDIVISION EDT-SPOT--EXEMPTION PLAT OF 58837'09"W 71.54' contained herein. LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. \ Executed this ____ day of , 2004. *0/52 President, Pitkin County Title, inc. Date ~ 5 1 Legend and Notes: .04Â· 1 \ The foregoing title certificate was acknowledged before me this ____ day of Dirk Detweiler, Owner i - indicates found monument as described. , 2004, by as the President of Pitkin County / Title, Inc. - Set No. 5 rebar and yellow plastic cap, LS.15710. Deborah J. Burek, Owner \ , My commission expires: - Basis of bearings based on found monuments as shown ' Witness my hand and official seal. EASEMENT-PARCEL #3 on south line of,j_ot 6 using a bearing of S5200'00"E Mortgagee(s) or Lien Holder(s) REC.NO. 401780 - This survejNILs not represent a title search by this \ Notary Public The foregoing Certificate of Ownership was acknowledged before me this ____ day of , 2004, by surveyor to determine ownership or to discover easements or j Dirk Detweiler and Deborah J. Burek, Owners. other encumbrances of record. All information pertaining to My Commission Expires: ownership, eosements or other encumbronces of record have /0 been taken from a Commitment for Title Insurance from Pitkin A ; 32* County Title, Inc. dated May 3, 2004 as Case No. Witness my hand and official seal PCT17469PR & PCT15763PR. 7 93 / 7 1 Notaty Pub/ic 1 Pertaining to Schedule 8-2 , 1 / 9 City Eng/neer 's Approva / 45,34\ -e 1 0 / 9..il up PARCEL #4 This plat of the SUBDIVISION LOT-SPLIT--EXEMPT+ON PLAT OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH Items 8, 9, 11 & 15 appear to *feet this property, however 4 -_-- day of , 2004. lands in the City and Town of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: 0 Â» 1- <2. / ~REC.NO. 401779 ~ CONDOMINIUMS was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer of the City of Aspen, this Know all men by these presents that Richard H. Wagar being the owners, the mortgagee or lien holder of certain are unable to be graphically depicted hereon. 1 11/ / K 1 Item 14 does not appear to *ffect this property. 4/ x96 North Condominium Unit, Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums, according to the Map thereof filed for record in _6 4 / city Engineer Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982 in Book 419 Items 12 & 13 are shown hereon. .40 ex I at Page 544 and amended January 15, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 849. Together with that parcel of land 'lf)/4 . 1 )7 described in Quit Claim Deed recorded February 13, 1997 at Reception No. 401779 and Excepting therefrom that 6/ ho I parcel of land described in Quit Claim Deed recorded February 13, 1997 as Reception No. 401781. ./\St;- / T / 1Â»7 \4 Does hereby plat this real property under the name and style of the SUBDIVISION 4-O7~~SPLIT. EXEMPT/ON PLAT OF / LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. / Tfm?t 1 /8. d ~ ~\<00 ' - 4 / 11,237 sq ft Property Executed this ____ day of , 2004. / / I City Council Approval 1 1 < A- L Low'*wh & 11Â».-.\...\\ /1 11 This plat of the SUBD/V/SION LOT~-SPLIT EXEMPTION PLAT OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH D-t 4 j -tu N84 07'45"EdÂ«\\4 9 CONDOMINIU&IS was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen, this Richard H. Wagar Owner NQ recorded os Reception No. of the real estate records of Pitkin County, 0 +~ 94 34.68, Â¥ Lodâ€¢ A 0 E A ) 46 ---- day of , 2004 as Ordinance NO. ____ Series of and ng Enve/oph g Colorado. Mortgagee(s) or Lien Holder(s) Â§ ~ ~--1 Signed this ____ clay of _________, 2004. The foregoing Certificate of Ownership was acknowledged before me this ____ day of , 2004, by -I t --14,31 4 23Â» fej 14'31"e 9 ,10 9 Mayor My Commission Expires: (53(iD- â‚¬ ,Ah/ 15 ~ Richard H. Wagar, Owner. 4 r-- GPO. 9/cp. 2 v \ .op / 42/b Liffy' 1 -4 b< 5 Â¢ Of) 3 D 4/kin - 99 / ..b< 43 4/40 4 / Attest: Witness my hand and official seal / 43 4/ \11(/ 401 "\4' - ~ 50 47/ 2- 1 / City Clerk C 7/16/92,Z-) -- \ (toi /064 'JLjv 1 Uy- 69-10.-- - 7 4 / /O. 4)7 9; Notary Public 7 -W/- 1/ Â§0/ / 11,428 sq ft Property / A Community Develooment Director's ADDroval Planning and Zonina Commission Approval 1 <-he L uÂ»-,hiE.1 l' . / ~ 7/vs plat of the SUBO/WS/ON LOT SPDF-Â£Â¥E)1@P770/V PLAT OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH This plat.of the SUÂ®IVISION COTWELIT EXEMPTION PLAT OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH S82'57'50'IE ' 29.15'- / 4. 4 Cont M Â£ A,/) CONDOMINIUMS wos reviewed and approved by the Director of the Community CONDOMINjUMS was r4ewed and op*rÂ©*0 by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Development Department of the City of Aspen, this ____ day of , 2004. City of Aspen\4Â£ a Rebq/ution on the _2:3~ day of _________, 2004, \\<SL- .-- 3 400 %, --x- / 0 \9 Signed this --_2\~tfiJ--------, 200*\\-\ Director 0/ P*Z Commission Chair 1 db X / \ / 4 f 0 UNE TABLE O Attest: Oj LINE LENGTH BEARING O City Clerk Ll 13.39 O ..02. f 9 4 * 4, u 30.25 842'29'002 j \A, L3 20.39 N33'44'15"E ~D \ Ci / .r.9"v, vj L4 11.36 N34'42'29"E <5> \ L5 7.54 N34'42'29"E ' 'th * x ~ ~ / ~V C SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE L6 12.57 533'43'51"W Clerk and Recorder's Acceptance L7 10.11 N34'42'297 X.-Cj ~\\~3\1K \* v Colorado, do hereby certify that thik SUBD/l//SION LOT SPUT EXEMP-778/V PLAT OF LOT 6, This plat of SUBDIVISION LOT SPLIT EXEMPTION PLAT OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS was accepted ~ j 1, Kenneth R. Wilson, a duly registered Professional Land Surveyor in the State of WI SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS correctly represents the results of a survey made for filing in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, at ____ O'clock, Â« under my direct responsibility, supervision and checking, which survey was prepared in p completed February 4,2004. -M. This ____ day of . 2004 in Book No. ---_ at Page __-_ and Reception No. accordance with Article 51 Title 38 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Field survey was CURVE 1, BLE - < CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT CHORD BEARING DE-LTA </ A ~ < ~ By. County Clerk and Recorder Cl 50.00 98.27 74.99 83.20 545'14'31"W 112'36'37' C2 50.00 22.15 11.26 21.97 N65'45'43'W 2522'56' / r \, i Kenneth R. Wilson C3 247.89 110.28 56.07 109.37 N09 54'00"E 25'29'18' p Professional Land Surveyor No. 15710 C4 247.89 7.76 3.88 7.75 N2332'28"E 1'47'37" \ jug C5 247.89 28.99 14.51 28.97 N27'47'15"E 641'59" C6 237.89 5.95 2.97 5.95 N2343'18"E 1'25'56" C7 237.89 27.59 13.81 27.58 N27'45'38"E 638'45" .U Notice: According to Colorado Law, you must SCHMUESER GORIDON MEYER NUM- REVISION DATE BY Job No. 941168-01 BER <SubdivisibiP Lot 1 0472t irie thE surveyl afthul thre2 ye31 offer 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Lot-4,~~~2Ty P ark you first discover such defect. In no event Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Drawn by: tkrn 6 SplitiE*emption Date: 05/18/04- may any legal action based upon any defect (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 in this survey be commenced more than ten Aspen, Colorado (970) '125-6727 North Condaminiums 9 -Plat --* Approved: OF 1 years from the date of the certification shown SCHMUESER 1 GORDON | MEYER Crested Butte, CO (970) 349-5355 hereon. ~ ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS E-mail: survey@sgm-inc.com ~ File: Lot6SunnyPork-SubdLo{Split 0:\1994\941168-01\dwg\em-L6-sun-topo-061703-2000.dwg Saved: Wed, 19 May 2004 11:54am Plotted: Wed, 19 May 2004 1:07pm tmoore Nt 'POS +003 1HDINAdOO .. DEVELOPMENT ORDER Of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070. "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site-specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date ofthis Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site-specific development plan as described below: Rich Watzar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, 517 Park Circle, Aspen, CO. 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number The North and South Condominiums of Lot 6, Sunnv Park North Condominiums, 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Co. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemptions approval for subdivision of the existing duplex lot into two single-familv lots Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describiiig Plan Ordinance No. 10-2004, Approved on 4/19/04 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Mav 1.2004 , Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Mav 1,2007 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) nd Issued this 22 day of April 2004, by the City of Aspen Community DeÂ¥elopment Directop; C )04 A (39 0- TWe Ann Woods, CommuniTTI~evelopment Director .. PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums, 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Co., by Ordinance of the Aspen City Council, numbered 10. For further information contact Scott Woodford at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. located at 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5102. s/City of Aspen Account Published in The Aspen Times on May 1,2004 .. RESOLUTION N0. 3, (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WllEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and. WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions: and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoiling Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuaiit to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemptioii approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, .. WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17,2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2,2004 where, by a seven to zero (7-0 vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance o f a building pennit for either or both of the proposed single-family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct tile site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer, e. Ail encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property liiie. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sigii off of aiiy building pennits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. .. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement o f any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue o f the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: 1f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court ofconipetent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity oftlie remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 17,2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: \ A .L Ill - v _. 1_lu DaNd Hoefer, Asst. CRY Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: .. ted*-2 41-4/ ~Mckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk .. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director \~z- FROM: Scott Woodford, City PlannefEr~ RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 2ND READING, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AiMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; ORDINANCE NO. LU , SERIES 2004 DATE: April 19,2004 . A view of the existint, . - - fire damaged duplex 11-=. .322... from Park Circle. The 4 â€ž*. -~ applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property into two lots and construct two single- -+-. * +I'll). %990* .UN?*- family residences. The ' driveway shown will be I abandoned and moved to I .Â¥Lk r the South fur access to ' one home. while tile 44 I .2 Â¥t . >d existinu access to the 4. k. h nortb Ifill relll,lin fur ' d 1 access to t|ie either. ....14 . PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMM.ARÂ¥: PUD Aniendment, Subdivision, and GMOS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single- family resideiices. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek. represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R-15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park Noi-th Condominiums P&Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7-0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMiMENDATION: SlJBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 .. PROJECT S-.M.ARY: On April 12. 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re-building the non-conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its tioor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code. the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single- family residences. The-_tw-0-lot_sthat the aRNicapt pf920-ses to create are,1-1,237_*lu-@re feet gid 11,428 sqware feet, which are smaller than what the Existing Rd-5, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single-family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R-15 zone district external tioor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in tioor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2. however, the applicants have agreed to split the allowed tloor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition the applicant is requesting approval to establish f_-due_ed front setbacks (from 25'__tq_107 and north side -yÂ®1__setbacks {from 10' _to _F). Twd -separate. 12'- wide driveways are proposed to access each lot 170-m-Phirk Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. Pl.\Â»INC. .ANI) ZONINC; OBBIIANION ACTION: 1 he Pil voted to approve the application on March 2. 2004 by a vote of 7-0. ho\#ever. the> chose to moilify one ke> Condition of approval. Wherells, the applicant proposed a 36 floor are:1 ratio (FAR) for the lieu single-family structures to be constructed on the lieu lots and staff recommended a .26. the P&Z voted to approve a .30 FAR. Iii making their decision. the P&Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate. given the sub-standard lot sizes and tlie desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later iii the report and the attached P&Z minutes for more details on this issue). APPLIC.un.E LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request. the following land lise approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code. a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD iii order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUOT.A SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 .. construction of a 6'Detached Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit" The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single-family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex. which is exempt from GMOS. subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Communitv Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. ExisTING CONDITIONS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files. the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. 1 he applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County. who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on tlieir property. The duplex is an existing non-conforming structure with respect to allowable iloor area, According to the application. the lillple>: is 5.760 sq. fu of tloor area. whereas the Code allous only 5.380 sq. fi.. As a note. Section 26.312.030 of the Code slates {11:11 non- conforming structures which are destioyed through - noll-purposeful destruction - illay be restored as of right if a building permit fur reconstruction is issued within luent>-I-our nionths oftlie date ol deniolition. In other A-ords. if the applicants uished to replace the duplex iii its existii-ig configuration. the Code would allow them to do so. regardless of its existing non-conforming structure status. NTAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, amonu the purposes of the PUD is to encourage tlexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals o f the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality. more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals. the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements ofan underlying zone district. Iii this case. the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code. a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential. commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 .. applied for on a lot of less than 27.000 square feet. according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property mav have the ability to ftirther the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the Pt-JD land lise review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22.665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staffs position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R-15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling lillit is 15.000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11.237 sq. ft. and the other 11.428 sq. ft.). STAFF POSITION oN PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single-family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment. this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south :ind southwest. The AACP eniphasizes the preservation. enhancement. and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition. tile propo,cd .5111.1[10- lot sizes .11Â¢ not greatly out 01 Compliance \Lith the lot sizes of tile surroundillu Kincle-lamily residences (see Exhibit E for this comp:lrison). & StafFs support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is. however. conditioned lipon Hnliting the :tillount of floor Lirea fur the two proposed single-family dwelling units to tile total amolint of square fuotage in the original duplex. According to the application. the Iloor area for the existing duplex is 5.760 sqiiare feet. Staff recommends that the two single-thmilv resideiices split this square footalle in a nianner chosen bv the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: ~ The limitation would alloy_the project to_lEtter cpmply with.the_gpls of_the 26Â¢21 -One of those goals, put foah by -the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two. separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening tip view-planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split lip between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the Slim of the new single-family residences will be over 2,400 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 .. square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. . The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FARs on smaller lots. So, the applicants proposal to lise the R- 15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller than required [OtS would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved if the lots actually met the required minimum of 15.000 sq. ft. For example, on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11.428 sq. ft.). the applicant proposes 4,098 sq. ft. of floor area - arrived at by using tlie tioor area ratios from the R-15 zone district standards - resulting in a .36 FAR. If. however, the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15.000 sq. ft.), the al[owed FAR would be only .30. Per staffs recommendation o f limiting the new structures to 2,880 sq. ft., (which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 21id public hearing, P&Z recommended a .30 FAR (equaling 3,400 sq. ft. of tioor area) as a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the staff' s recommendation. Tlie chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: Scenarios: .Area in R-15 Applicaiits 11 237 sq. ft. 4.098 sq. ft. .36 Ii*l,posal: 11 -428 sci. ft. 4.098 sq. fu .36 Compliance Mith 101,6 It-15 Minimum I i000 sq. It. 4,>60 sq. ft. ..30 * 23 Lot Size: 4 c 410 Â¢ Staff 11 237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .25 P&Z 11,237 sq. ft. 3.400 sq. ft. .30 Recommendation: [1.428 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. m Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single-family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two-single family residences Oil order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a major benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is further benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed if the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 .. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the It- 15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: R-15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard 25' 10' hetback Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard 10' 5' Setback South Side Yard 10, 15' Setback STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in Conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F. the median setback of the surrounding properties. while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition. the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape. rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additioiial buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this reqiiest for reduced setbacks off the north property line. the applicants have agreed to more stringent south sicle vard setbacks (15~ versus 10 ) 2. Glic)\\11 11 *N' *(4Â·:3114:N-1' 01 Or'.\ f.,~wan] ((11~1()>,): In order to obmin the Llc\ Clopment 1 ights to build the single-llimily residences. Lin exemption to the (il\!C )% is necess:ir>. 1-lic 12)11<)\\ ing is all explanation of the exeniption und staff position on its conipli:ince with the review criteria (Slaff Findings Can be found in Exhibit 13): DE-F.\CHED KING[.E-1'.\\11[=h' 0[< 1)l,Il~[.EX i.)WE[.LING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(8). in order to qualify for a single-family exemption. the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 .. Per staffs recommendation of limiting t]ie size of the two single-family residences. the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the -net increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR. no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this. the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area o f the existing duplex. then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in tloor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. St'BDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17.2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. 9TAFF SUMMARY.AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision. and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle. with conditions as put forth in tlie attached ordinance. REE:(111,MENDEDMOTIO#: 1 move to approve Ordinance No. . Series 01 2004. for Planned Unit De\Clopillent C Pl LI)) Amendmen l. H u bdivision. and C IN[(9% E remplion fur 517 Park (-'iic le" \11.1(11~IENTH: Exhibit A: Ntaff Findings - Planned Unit Development St:ind:irdM Exhibit 13: Staff Findings - GUQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings - Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P&Z Minutes Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors ( please bring Application from C Reading- If you need an extra copy, please contact me) 5 I 7 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 .. ORDINANCE N(). IO , (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANC'E OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINHÂ»IS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek. represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMOS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks: and. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation [District. City Engineerinu. Building |)cpartment. 1Â·irc. Ktrects. Parks und \Vater Departments as a resuh of tile |)C\Clopillent 14Â·\ ic\\ Committee lileeting. und. WIIERICAS, said le ferral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department rn iewed the proposed Planned Unil Development Amendment Subdhision .ind Gri,wth Management Quota System ((-61()S) Exemption and recommended approval uith conditions; and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code. PED approval inay be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considerine recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission. the Community Development Director. and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code. Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Coiincil at a ditly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission. the Conimunity Development Director, and relevant referral agencies: and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code. GMOS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however. -8- .. according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning Lind Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17. 2004. the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 1 2004 where, by a seven to zero (7-Q) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision. and GMQS Exemption, w-ith the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal nieets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions. is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspeii Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development proposal at a regular City Council meeting on April 19.2004 and. by a vote of to (_ - _). approved this Ordinance (on Second Reading) for a PUD Amendment. Subdivision. and GMON Exemption: and. WHEREAN, the ('it> of Aspen Cily Council finds that this Ordinance filrthers und is liccessary ful- the promolion of public health. safety. and \\cliare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ltENOLVE]) 1:Y THE ASPEN (FIT) C'()UNCIL rHAT: Xection 1: Tlie approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or botli of the proposed single- family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyoiid what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles exiting each driveway onto the public street. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. .. e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way including the landscape berms. f. The C ity Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6 tap to serve both proposed dwellings. but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees. impacts fees. and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The tloor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, o f the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to - 1. 3,400 square feet each. which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of.30 on 3(0334 the proposed lots. A note indicating this tloor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal \\ ill l'equhr t\\0 Scporate taps. 5 Pl ND Plans shall |le recorded uithill 180 dll>'s of the final approval by ('it> Council. 6. The applicallt Sh:1~1 tile a Notice of PED in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance nia building pernlit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots. the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards. along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided. and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. - 10 - .. Sectic,n 3: If any section. subsection. sentence, clause, phrase. or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction. such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the Cit> Ill! 1 Council of the City of Aspen on this 22 aay of March, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud. Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 19tll day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk Helen Kalin Klandel-lill. Mavor APPROVED 4% TO FORM: John Worcestor. City Attornev - 11 - .. EXHIBIT A ST.#FF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards aiid requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1 The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES ]T COMPLY? YES The future land use map iii the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential" Therefore. the proposal tO Sllbdivide tlie existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. 1 lie project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP inclitile the desire to "preserve. enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment oftlie Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards tlie ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a siiigle wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed developnient shall be consistent with the character of existinu land uses in the surrounding area. ST.\FF FINDING: DOES IT COMPI.3 ? Y B 1-|le exibl ing character O1- t|le All I'l-(~lltliling a rea is a mix of o Ider apartmentA and el)11(| o Ill illill 111% illtel-Hputhed Hith Ne\Cial I.11'gc <111il I'Ccently Constructed Single-|tilliN> |10!lics. I lictc 1% 110 olic prcullent Upe 01 [and lise. The addition (11'two sillule thillib. residences \\.ill contrilillte to this m i x mid u i | |. therefore. be Consislent \\ i th the characler of the bil n oll 11(l ing .11 en. 3. 1 he proposed development shall not adversely affect the fliture development of the sitrrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES 11 COMPLY ? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the ftiture development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GNIQS. or GMOS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to. or in combination with. final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMOS for construction of two detached single- family dwelling unit. - 12 - .. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Zone District Dimensional Requirement Proposed Requirement Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot L.. ...... 15,000 11,237 Lot 2 .. ...... ... .. 15,000. 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Utiit Lotl....... .... 15,000 11.237 Lot 2. 15,000.............. 11.428 Mininium Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 1 0 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum holith Hide Yard Setback 10 feet 15 Ibet Millinium Rear Yard Setback 1 C ) fuet I 0 fuet NI .1.xhnilin Height 25 ket 25 Ibet Minimum Distance b/w Buililings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4.080 sq. ft.. plus 7 sq. ft.leach addl. 100 sq. ft. iii lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4.500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. -13 - .. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes. waterways. shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation. parking, and historical resources. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than nlinimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception of the smaller than ininimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all ofthe required dimensional standards for the 14-1 5 zone district. Witli respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single-family residences to the total size of the existing diiplex. With tliis limit. staff feels that an appropriate scale. 1-nass. site coverauc and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of oilistreet parking spaces shall he established based on the Ic)lloning Considel'lltions: 21 ) The probable lilliiiber ol'cars lised hy those liNing the proposed de~ eli)]3111Â¢111 iliciliding 2111\ non-residenlial land lINeS. b) The vaning time periods ofuse. Irlienever joinl use ofcommon parking is ]31 (113(,Sed. c) The availabilily of public transit and other transportation theilities. including those fur pedestrian access :ind/or the commitment to utilize atitomobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. CD The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. SrrAFF FUNDING: DOES Er COMPLY? 3/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure. drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. - 14 - .. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection. snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. ST.AFF FINDINC DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense iii order to meet the expected demand. No reductions iii density, therefore. are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable tor the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mild flow. rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) l he effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff. drainage. soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality iii the siirrotinding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway. or trail iii the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. S 1 4171Â· FINDING: DOES rr Courn ? 1 N/A I There exihts no 11:itural hazards or critical site teatures :1% the site 11:14 :11[-Cady been developed, No leilliction, in densit>. therefore. are required. 6. 1 he lillixillium allouable dellsity Hithill a PljD may be increased it' there exists a signiticant conliliullity goal to be achieved through such increase und the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the sites physical constraints. Specifically, the niaximum density of a PUD may be increased li. a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5. above. those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximiim density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses. and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NI/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. -15- .. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1 Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in tin appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are tio existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique. provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past. or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively hnpacted by the existing duplex. 3. Strtichires :ire :1~3propriately oriented lo public sit-cets. contribute to the lIt-li:111 or tural Colitext where appropriate. und provide visual interest lind eng.lgellient of vellicul:11 aild pellusti-illl-1 illovenicilt Al:\11 FINDIN(;: DOES 1 I COMPIA ? Yl 6 Fhe proposed lot layout illiproves the 01-ientation to the public street iner the existilly hitilation. 1-he ellirent (Ilip|ex is not parallel with the street, The new lots \\411 21|109\ the Ileâ€ž Ntt-llctures to be parallel with the street. which Noilld Comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having sti uctures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of tlie lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow eillergency lind service vehicle access. ST.\FF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Botii structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. - 16 - .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES A sidewalk along tile Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to coniply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to haiidicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development iii a practical and reasonable inanner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES 11 COMPLY? YES Each structure constructed on the iiewly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements i-elated to site drainage 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY ? N/A There are no non-residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility o f the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city. with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: I The landscape plan exhibits a Hell designated treatment ofexterior spaces. preset'N ex existing sigilificant velletation. and provides 211-1 ample quantil> :Ind variety 01 (,111:1111Â¢111:11 plant species sllitable for the Aspen area climate. 1 Nigniticant existing 11:ltural :ind illan-made site fulltures. which provide uniquelless illid ittterest in the |:lliciscape. are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 1 The proposed method oi protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES lT COMPLY? YI.s According to the application. some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved at-ound on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" Iiatural or man-macie features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of tlie property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest. variety, character. and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use. the building's proposed massing. proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials. and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan -17- .. ali architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing anci proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of. the intended use. and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate. to the extent practical natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the propertys solar access, shade. and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical svstems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water iii a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesnt include any specific building plans for the two proposed single-family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit tile City will review the plans to ensure tliat they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Liuhtine. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted iii an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1 AH lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct ulare or 11:17:11-dous interference of .}11> kind to adjoining streets or kinds. Lighting of site feallires. structilres. Und access va>s is proposed in an appropriate :lililliler. . All exterior lighting %11:111 be ill Compliance uith the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless ollieruise apprined and noted in the final PL ID documents, i Ill-lighting 01 bile Ibillures. bilildings. landscape elements. and lighting to caH inordinate Litlention to tile properly is prohibited lor residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No lighting plan was Sllbinitted w'ith this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At titne of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park. Open Space. or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park. open space. or recreation area for the niutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD. the following criteria shall be met: 1 The proposed amount, location. and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development. considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. -18- .. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not fur a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces recreation areas. and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Tlie applicant is not proposing any common park, open space. or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities. public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the de, eloper is reimbursed proportionately for the additional illiprovement. I Al *1Â·1Â· Flil)ING: DOES rr Onipin " ' Yi.6 1 According to the applicant and the per the re'\ le\\ 01' the Dewelopment Re\ie\\ Conunittee (1)14('). adequate itililic, mid pliblic fACIlITIes exist to senc the proposed de# eli) pinent. L Access und Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible. does not lindilly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian tind recreational trail facilities and minimizes the lise of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot. structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way. or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both of the proposed single-family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to tliis project iiitersect with Park Circle. which may include pruning or illoving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant. thereby improving pedestrian access and safety iii ati area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. -19 - .. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. ST.AFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single-family. house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use. iniprovements of. or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system. and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths. and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates. guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD. are niinimized to the extent practical. hi.#IfF FINDING: DOEM IT COMPL,? YEN Criteria #3. #4. and #5 tile not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4. tile applicant is propohing to ilistal| a hilic\\ alk al<)11% Park Circle for dic portion t|mt fronti the propell> 1 Â£ Phasi!12 01- Development Pl:111. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual Pl JI) apillications) The purpose of this cliteria is to ensure parti:lily Completed projects do iii)t create an untlecess:lry burden on the public or surrounding property ininers Und impacts of all indivicillal phase are niitigated :idequatel>'. If ph:tHing Of tile development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase. shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating. to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities. payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu. construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of a*ny required aifordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized conctirrent or prior to tlie respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPUCABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at tliis time. -20- .. Exinurr B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXENIPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth nianagement scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was sitbdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14. 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E). or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single-family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption rdview is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single-flimilv. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursiiant to Section 26.520. b. paying the applicable affurdable housing illipact fue pill'sualit to the Aspen/Pitkin Counly 11()liNing Authority Guidelines. as :1111Ctided: or C. recording a resident-occup:incy (RO) deed restriction on the single-ilimily dweliing iiiiit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling", is applicable in this case and pi-ovides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single-fainily residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the ainount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee iii lieu iii order to qualify for the GMOS Exemption. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the - ilet" increase iii FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase iii FAR, no mitigatioti is required iii this case. -21 - .. EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that Sllbdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP) ~TAFF FINDING: DOES Il' COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as 'Residential" Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate illasses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision sh:111 be consistent with tile character of existing land likes !11 the IlneL.. .T Al U'+FINDING: DOE>, 1-1 On] PLY? YES 1"|le existing Character of the Slin-ounding area is a mix of older ap,litilients and Condominillins interspersed Nith Scvcral large and recently Consti'llatell Sinile-filillily hoines. There is no one prevalent typc of land use. The addition of two single-Family resiclences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent u.ith the character ol the surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES n CONwLY? YES Staff believes tliat tliis development will riot adversely affect the ftitllre development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. -22- .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements. including with the zoning requirements of the R-15 zone district are being met witli the exceptioii of the minimum lot sizes. which are being established through the PUD process, B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide. avalanche or snowslide. steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope. the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is coilfidetit that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that caiise inefficiencies. duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. SI #1Â·F FINDIM;: DOES 1 1 CMMPLV? YES Staff believes that the %11bdi,ision Ims been designed to avoid all Of the :1[30\C hpatia| patterns. C hnprovements. The iniprovenients set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be ]lim idell fur the proposed subdivision. These standards 111:ly be vat-ied by special review (See. Chapter 26.430) ifthe following conditions have been met: I A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to tile subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. the existing. neighboring development areas. and/or the goals of the community. ST.AFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide .justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES 11 COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards, -23- .. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirenients of Chapter 26.520. Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota Systern. SrrjiFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520. Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replaceinent housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed iiI)on all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash paynient in-lieu of dedicating land to the City. or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. Al.41Â·+FINI)INC 1 DOES Ir' COMPL) ? -N/A |I,en thotigh a lic\\ hubili\Nion is being Created. no additional tchicielitial unit>% ill-C being created above and beyond u hal exists oil the hite no\\ Thu purpose oi the school Mnd decl ication fech is to ellhure that the current level of sen ice is illizint:iined as development occurs and school elli-Ollillent gro\,s. As there is not net Ile\\ gro\Ull oecul'ling u ith this propo>,al. .Staff uould interpret the requirement to not be applicable iii this instaiice. -24- .. EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: .John Niewoehner. Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17,2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS Attendees: Scott Woodford. Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner. Community Development Department Phil Overeynder. Water Departnieiit 1 <,111 Bracewel[. Sanitation District Bri:in 17>1111. Parks Departllient [id \ .111\\ .111*liven. Fire Departnicilt Denis Murr:ty. Bltilding Department .lanette Whitcomb. linvironmental i lealt]1 1-im Ware. Parking Stan Clauson. representative fur applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting. the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed. the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single-family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DUC COMMENTs Zoning: â€¢ 517 Park Circle is located in the R-15 Pl.JD zone district that has the followina dimensional requirements: -25- D .. Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet â€¢ 1-lie application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B-Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R-15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R-15 zone district. Also. Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be -setback- and not '~building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). â€¢ Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Furtlier, the existing allowable and proposed FARs cio not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and pi-oposcc[ [loor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawinus :ire submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drimings ilicluded in the application packet do not Colitain adequate Liet:iii forthix level olh~eview. â€¢ Park Fee - Ilic aplilic:int uil[ be required to pay a Park Dedication 111111.ict Fee fur lillY additional bedrooms that are added. â€¢ Residential Design M tandards - Both houses will be required to comply \\ ith Section 26.410, Residentia[ Desiun Standards. â€¢ Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 ofthe Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets. can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: â€¢ Encroachment - An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. â€¢ Site Distance - The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms cio not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. â€¢ Drivewav - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. -26- .. Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a Roor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler s>-sterns will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC/517ParkCircle -27- 77 N EXHIBIT E 1 LOT SIZE ANALYSIS / #24 k.y.- .0. 930 -P . . - Â» 1 ..PX / - (/ 1 41 L \ H \ , 11,237 sq. ft. lot ' . 43Â·Â·Â· ~-V' / +33 N v A- ..le / 11428 sq. ft. lot IiI I / 62* ./ / 1 944 / 1 ' '249.90 31 1 4/*3-7 . f / 4,200 approx. homes ~ \~ , , , v. 1/p::.. . u 1./ /1 1 432*. i __ $ 6.- h Â» I 1 4 200 Park Circle , I I 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3.373 sq. ft. home 501 Park Circle /\ F.:,1.,LA --1 f *2 i -21#41: 14*f f V ' 06 :44*674(f / 4 4133147Ut~Lte 7 M ..1 10- 4 fÂ¢ft>/ /3 1 -2 -- 1/1-91 f \ VMLey'/// t 5.*p~: 4 /2/ 1% I, Wfy- 4*fi / . 6. F ./. 1 / 1 / f .4 .. /4, J e r o , :/flf- ~** . \/I *,/ - 1., ...\ r. - . -1 2 1.9 // l 1. / I. i /A / 4 ' , a>.A _ -. I XII,1-27 1 /' f .: 04 - ' . i Vm*. 1 -Â·I ..fi.'.7'///1'1 fit ~ 200 Park Circle / 1 1 \ 22--74.kâ‚¬J/3 / M--~JAÂ·Â· \ , u ~ -v 15.856 sq. ft. lot 1 . / t .1 2.674 sq. ft. home Apartments 8 -* - . 0-4\ 7/.-73/ 1.--5 \ 1 1. / , Â£ iNY<J 1-UNK 4-11-CIC 18,259 sa, ft. lot 3.004 sq. 2. home lili , /\ 9-0 > //2 /4.1,??:X '. -1 ' Â·42 -' fÂ©Â°// f_jl--L.-0| S , :- LY 1 1: Â· -+4 1 1 , -\Â« , ..=1Â»--- r h~ J.[ 4-] 1.f-U Â»i L F Ly F-. ---- , 1 1 x .942 411 * vt 1~ -I- lutr U 1 1 1-=BE Tri-Plex <41-i._] L~~ 11 Â·a~.LiÂ»..~ 1 / C - - 510 Park Circle Â· 42:1 y h ........ ./ 4/ UP. V \ \ 9/ 1 8.200 sq. ft. lot , 1.591 sq. ft./unit IrÂ·"1 &2 ' 1 J f 4 05*----v:*->- 6DZ.Â·V :199 ' 1 Ld 'Â·r~~11 -& - J.J 141 --IL--1 / V 6 4 4 %*-t-Â·.Â·~ i~~ ... ~C I F Tf% 953 -" ' r >. t/; yarea~r~~- f9 #p 'l~"f 4134. L.' 34 4 1 -t .., 3 2 \1 .3/I -IÂ·el<I:.2 1 a A-- .10 2. ... . , .\%-/ -.-/ ////// 49. /L,-ti~~i,<1~~ 1 f-fil pi I ~Â·~fwl' %*s:6 11 ~- ' =:/76 I j./44?: 1 '~Â»In~.fl.& f' 41 fl--\V J 4'V pirc?, 9- . . 23 V :1 K 1 1 â„¢. \ 1# : -1 3 1Â» I Â· 1 2-w / lY'..r .V F#/i I P f F.1'~7;:'. ir - .,; '' #*f . ---f Et. vCC 5 - v ~ Pti ~I+ 1-1 F#3 f )3 .4 ti- -- f -" Â·uvÂ· i F ~ 4---: T 1 a \\ , 1 <.z:** v ~ '.....~,~ (l.c mw' / i 'f:. 1/~/ C -- i 4Â©49 1.\.\. ~ FfÂ·f Â· ~ 4 2 / C.. - \ 41 f<-w / K:*~ ~1~ f~~b*lOt?*47 j 1 1Â·. 44%2.1/ ~FlfÂ·fi ftkf.-9 I j fiT=~ 1 I. -- , / # 1-' - / 4..IM I '2 -- - . 1-\ IL It ~'. 1- 4:/ FÂ·- ~Â·,Â· -i-Â·- ~~ *f~ 1 r + 1 ae m CE V 1 / 1, i 1 1 -3 1 -1 1 1 1 1-. -.0 I VAV-p# .. S 'IAN EXHIBIT F PlannÂ· SETBACK ANALYSIS Lands Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970 925.2323 4 February 2004 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.corn WEB: n.w.scaplanning.com Mr. Scott Woodfori Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback V ariance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However, a good number ofthese are less than ten feet, and the median setback ofthe nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover. this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space ofthe tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2. tile proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting ofthe principal mass ofthe building on the plane of the street. rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities ofthe proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions about this matter. Very truly yours, Stan Clausons AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants ./ tc\ 13 PLAN?\UNG AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS "71"mprEÂ·- .Uu/// 11 3 11 1 X XÂ« f \ -f \ I 43244 / 19 /6 ./9 /6 1 N / / Arl / \ / 94 ff/ ./1 /1/ \/ h/79/ f r.4 .4 1 / / f , .- 2,4 - n} Re- . - 14 ~ 74,/Â» 1 4------ - 44Â· / 1 7,4-:~ I \\ .1 6Â·74, 'b a li../8.,, 4 k , 44-'.-1 21-~ J 1 14it.6,Â«04 1-Â»~94\\i \41 7 Setback Range = 0.0' - 54.7 // ---pÂ« Â«0\~j Â·-, Setback Median = 9.9' /Â» 4.4 A- 11 14~6 .41 A / -9%< 01Â»9 11Â«fÂ«*fki~~iÂ·.33/Z,,r /Z.--'A =b---1--1/ %\ \ 09\ ~~,/5 . f771 3 V 244:i'4/ j 1 JIT[ 4 F-1-_ .1 1 '171< .,241 1.1 ) <~~ ~.~~~ r---_1==IC JU--_~ ig 1 .;OJ./ / -11 -1- -1 1-71 1 11 rti--7 2 39'.94 : ./r L 1 3 2 121' - ~Â»4Â»t ~-~~~~~~ o~-~- ---- ~~ifffÂ« L-71 ~f Tl 1 3 V / F---4-1 1 ASPEN PLANNING'Z ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02.2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning 2 EXHIBIT G Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. PkZ r P&Z MINUTES _ were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman. and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of "actual use". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zone district was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or detemlination regarding the parking garage. Johnson said that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi-family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded it wasn'I considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it and coming back to the Conimission. , MINUTES AJOTION: Jack Johilson moved to approve the minutes from January 13, Fcbmiary 3 and 4,2004, seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6-0. 1)ECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson. John Rowland and -Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the -Lodge, CONTINUED PUBLIC .HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PED AMENDMENT - 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the continued pu-blic hearing on the Wagar PUD th amendment; public notice was received on February 17 . S,cott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R-15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and- side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single-family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single-family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district on page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11:237 square feet with a residence at 4236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R-15 zone district allowed 15:000 2 ASPEN PLANNING~ONING COMMISSION Mi~es MARCH 02.2004 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,428 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR. Woodford stated that if PAZ approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee-in-lieu for any additional amount of sq-uare footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson: planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part of this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor area be less than the floor area allowed in the R-15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area because there was a constant flow of traffic and it would be an improvement very aesthetically done. Burek said they were building a green stl-llcture. Roger Hanenian asked the FAR for one home with a single lot of 22.000 square feet. Scott \Voodford answered the allowable square footage was 4,920. Dylan Johns asked what would be the actual allowable floor area for that lot size (11,237 square feet) that the applicant was proposing, what would be allowed under the zoning. Woodford said there was a different floor area based on a lot size in the code minus the slope reduction, which was the number in the chart (2,880 square feet). Johns asked if the slope reduction applies to the lot before the lot split. Woodford replied that was correct then staff averaged the floor area between the two lots. Jasmine Tygre noted the numbers were troublesome; there were a lot of numbers with three resulting FARs. Tygre said her question was similar because on the chart the resulting FAR, for example, there was a 15,000 square foot lot with an allowable floor area of 4500 square feet and the resulting FAR would be .30; she asked why they didn't take that amount and apply it to the actual lot sizes. Tygre noted there was a sliding scale that gave preference to smaller lots. Woodford replied that the lot sizes included the slope reduction in the FAR. calculations; one Cr) .. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 01 2004 lot was flat and the total was averaged at 2,880 each. Tygre noted the sidewalk provision was not specified in the resolution. Woodford replied that it was on the plans and could be added to the resolution. Tygre requested the condition be added. Jack Johnson asked the purpose behind slope reduction. Woodford responded to reduce any amount of FAR on steep slopes and encourage building on the flat parts of the sites and discourage building on steep slopes; there was a maximum reduction of 25%. Johnson asked if the lot next door was owned by the city and in the county and what was the square footage. Clauson replied it was in the county and owned by the county; it was 6,000 square feet. Johnson asked if there was an attempt to purchase from the county. Clauson answered there has been some discussion with the county but there has been no resolution. Johnson said if it were purchased then the lois would be less short of the 15,000 square feet than it is today. Clauson replied that was correct; thei-e would be a considerable amount of process before that lot could be added to the PUD and this would need to annexed into the city so it was prohibitive to this application because the Detweilers need a home. Johnson said there were no zones between R-6 and R-15. There were no public comments but there were 3 ]etters entered into the public record (1) Gerry Wendel] supportiny the lot split (2) H. Mo-ntgomery Loud supported the lot spit (3) Charles Rowers in favor of the ]01 split. Ruth Kruger said that this proposal was good for the lieighborhood and will improve the overall look; she will support the proposal. Johns said that ifthey were putting in sidewalks they would be giving back to the community. Johns noted this neighborhood was surrounded by R-6 and RMF so lie didn't see why they should have anything punitive; if they built a bigger house then they would have to pay the mitigation as stated in the code. John Rowland stated that he was in favor of all of the issues but felt a little uncomfortable with the numbers that staff suggested at 2880 square feet given the size of the lot and given the square footage that the applicant asked for. Johnson stated that he didn't see where anyone was being punished; if you don't have a big enough lot then you can't build that square footage, if you are in R-15 you need a 15,000 square foot lot. Johnson said that what was proposed was better than what exists; he could support the staffrecommendation of dividing the duplex into two getting the 2880 square feet and he could support Jasmine' s suggestion of using multipHer of.3 for the desirable FAR for a 15.000 square foot lot and to the lot sizes as proposed. Johnson asked if the slope reduction could be disregarded. 4 ASPEN PLANNING~ONING COAIMISSION Mi~es KIARCH 02.2004 Woodford replied that it could not. Johnson said that he was trying to compromise what staffstiggested and the applicant requested; his figures were 3371 and 3428 square feet and with slope reduction it would be 2578 square feet. Haneman asked if R-15 was the zone on the property when it was annexed into the city. Allgaier answered yes. Haneman said that if you were looking at an empty lot with out the displacement ofpeople atid requested cutting the lot in half in the R-15 zone district, it wouldn't be allowed because the lots were 11,000 plus square feet. Haneman said that he was going along the lines where Jack was with the FAR at somewhere in between the applicant's request and the staff recommendation but wasn't sure how to arrive at that number. Johnson explained the .30 calculations, which would be 3370.1 square feet and 3400 square feet. Haneman said that number was almost right on with the square footage of the home across the street, which is currently the in the area according the map. Jasmine was inclined to agree with Roger and Jack on the square footage because these were two non-conforming lots, which were smaller than what was allowed. David Hoefer noted that the language could read the number ofsquarefeet less the slope reduction calculated by staff. Woodford suggested statin.g the FAR as supported by the commission. Steve Skadron said that the applicant did a good job of minimizing the impact on the property, which was a public benefit however he sees legitimacy in Roger and Jack s calculations but has an issue with not abiding by staffs numbers and setting precedent by nianipulating numbers. Discussion: Johnson said they have come up with a middle ground between staffs recommendation and the applicant's request. Kruger said it was a compromise that fit into the neighborhood. Skadron noted it was based on .30 FAR. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #5, 2004 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences with the following conditions: 1. Prior toissliance of a building permitfor either or both of the proposed single-family residences: (a) Park Dedicationfees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. (b) Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. (c) An outdoor lighting planfor each residence shall be submitted. (d) The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (e) An encroachment license shall be appliedfor and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape be}-ms. * The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation svstem 5 .. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes 1MARCH 02.2004 located iii the city right-of-way. (g) The building pei-mit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line, (h) Tile applicant shall be able to LISE the existing 6" rap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared senice agreement will be required prior to sign Off Ofaily building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. (i) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building pei-niit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of.4spen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each. which is roughly theresult of a floor arearatio of.30 on th.eproposed lots. A note indicating this floor drea limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applican.t shall abandon the existing tap before bistalling the n.ew tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days ofthe final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD iii the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin Coun.tv subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on th.e newlyÂ· created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, iii compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronis Park Circle. Seconded by Roger Halleman. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Hanenian, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes: Johilson, yes; Ty'gre. yes. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ( 12/16/04.01/06/04.01/20:04.02/03/04 02/03.04): LODGE .AT ASPEN CONC EPTUAL PLT) lasmine -I-ygre opened the co-ntinued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen: Ruth Krugen Jack .johnson and John Rowland recused themselves. Scott Woodford handed out letters from the public that were received today. Tygre stated that the letters would be 1111-roduced into the record just prior to public coiuments. Woodford explained the conditions in the resolution have been fine tuned over the course of the public hearings. Through the course of the 1-eview from PECZ, staff and the public the impacts o f the proposed building on some of the neighbors consequently a condition was structured required the applicant reduce the impacts to the neighbors (condition #4a). One of the conditions was to reduce this 5-story portion down a story and remove the covered entryway in order to increase the setback. Woodford said the condition stated the areas closest to the property line be reduced in height and stepped back. A condition relates to Juan Street Affordable Housing with increased setbacks between the Lodge and the northwest corner of Juan Street Affordable Housing stepping back the fourth story to provide additional space between the structures. Th.e bridge over Juan Street was a big concern and it was suggested to remove the bridge entirely or-reduce the height of the bridge to one story to lessen the impacts. The safety of South Aspen Street was another concern but snow melting the street was not recommended by the city of 6 . EXHIBIT H: Cliarles IMI. **ovve LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS February 24,2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment - 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: My name is Charles M. Rowars and I reside at 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen. My home directly overlooks the residence where Rich Wagar lived and wants to live. I am writing to you to express my support of the proposed lot split at 517 Park Circle. I have no opposition to the lot split and your recommendation of the lot split will provide an opportunity for improved redevelopment of the fire-damaged duplex. The resulting two houses will be more in keeping with the open qualities of the neighborhood. I nave also been jnformed that the planning staff js proposing to restrict the available floor area for both properties to that of the original duplex. I feel that the restriction as currently proposed by the planning staff is inappropriate. It is my opinion that such a restriction is unfair to the parties involved and that both parties should be allowed to develop homes in accordance to the floor area tables appropriate to the current zone district. Very truly yours, /9 Charles M. Rowars Charles M. Rowars 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-8037 .. H. Montgomery Loud 401 Smuggler Mtn. Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 17, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Since we have lived in the neighborhood we certainly have the highest regard for the quality of our neiglibors' homes. The proposed lot split allowing separate dwellings will provide for improved replacement of the building with two separate and more open sites. This would enhance the overall appearance of this extensive view plane. Very truly yours, 1) /n I A 1/ ) ftl#136+#M 1- Af A - k-1--U H. Montgomer# Loud / /HML 02/19/2004 14:38 FAX 702 362 1348 HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT G 0 002 Fet,19, 2004 1:43PM ~ ~ No 3957 1 2 MEMORANDIBI Date: February 17,2004 Â· To: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Attn: Scott Woodford, Planner From: Gerry Wendel Re: Wagar,Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Cglorado I drive by 517 Park Circle two or three times a day as 1 reside at 201 Silverlode Drive, Aspen. I acl writing this letter to express my support oftlle proposed lot split I am oftlie belief that two single-family homes instead of one large duplex will improve the visual impact to the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staffhas proposed restricting the available floor area to both properties to that of the original duplex. I believe that this is an inappropriate restriction, as the resulting houses will be too. small to provide for a reasonable return on their investment. It is my opinion, as a neighbor, that all properties in this district should be allowed to davelop homes of reasonable size, in accordance with the floor area tables appropriate to the zone district. Geri-z Wendel ? 9 1- T Q R R I 1 .. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director C~- FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner<*-- RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 1ST READING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; ORDINANCE No. , SERIES 2004 DATE: March 22,2004 P... + A view ofthe existing, fire damaged duplex - 443 . from Park Circle. The Â· applicants propose to tear down the duplex, . subdivide the property 1 4.0 . vt into two lots and construct two single- . family residences. The driveway shown will be 6 -t . abandoned and moved to 1 4.1 * % - . 1...L the south for access to ,*Â»Uk .- 4.â€¢ 1 - ~ 20â€¢= ~ one home, while the ' existing access to the % + 3 north will remain for - access to the other. .1 ,.Â¥40,4,2 PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMOS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two developinent rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single- family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R-15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums P&Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7-0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 .. PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re-building the non-conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single- family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R-15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single-family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R-15 zone district external floor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in floor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2. however, the applicants have agreed to split the allowed floor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced front setbacks (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setbacks (from 10' to 5'). Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The P&Z voted to approve the application on March 2,2004 by a vote of 7-0, however, they chose to modify one key condition of approval. Whereas, the applicant proposed a .36 floor area ratio (FAR) for the new single-family structures to be constructed on the new lots and staff recommended a .26, the P&Z voted to approve a .30 FAR. In making their decision, the P&Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate, given the sub-standard lot sizes and the desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later in the report and the attaclicd P&Z minutes for more details on this issue). APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authoritv: Citv Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 .. construction of a "Detached Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single-family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authoritv: Communitv Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. EXISTING CONDITIONS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non-conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non-purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non-conforming structure status. STAFFCOMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals. the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for mi.nimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial. tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 .. applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property mav have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staff s position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R-15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.). STAFF POSITION oN PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single-family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single-family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison). Staffs support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single-family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single-family residences-split-this-square-footage-in-a-manner--chosen- bv-the-applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: . The limitation would allow the project to better comply with the goals o f the AACP. One of those goals, put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view-planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the sum of the new single-family residences will be over 2,400 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 .. square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. â€¢ The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. So, the applicants proposal to use the R- 15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller than required lots would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved if the lots actually met the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11,428 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes 4,098 sq. ft. of floor area - arrived at by using the floor area ratios from the R-15 zone district standards - resulting in a .36 FAR. If, however, the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.), the allowed FAR would be only .30. Per staff' s recommendation of limiting the new structures to 2.880 sq. ft.,(which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 2nd public hearing, P&Z recommended a .30 FAR (equaling 3,400 sq. ft. of floor area) as a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the staff s recommendation. The chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: , Scenarios: Area in R-15 Applicants 11,237 sq. ft. 4.098 sq. ft. .36 Proposal: 11,428 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. .36 Compliance with R-15 Miniinum 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. .30 Lot S ize: Staff 11,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .25 P&Z 11,237 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. .30 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. â€¢ Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single-family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two-single family residences (in order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a maj or benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is further benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed if the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 .. SETBACK REOUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R-15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: R-15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard 25' 10' Setback Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard 10' 5' Setback South Side Yard 10' 15' Setback STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks iii the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10'). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single-family residences. an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review- criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 .. Per staff s recommendation of limiting the size of the two single-family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase iii floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17, 2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MoTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. , Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMOS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings - Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P&Z Minutes Exhibit H: Application 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 .. ORDINANCE N0. , (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen.Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission. the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code. Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director. and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, -8- .. according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2, 2004 where, by a seven to zero (f-fl) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption. with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal. with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development proposal at a regular City Council meeting on April 26,2004 and, by a vote of to L - 3, approved this Ordinance (on Second Reading) for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMOS Exemption; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single- family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction o f the City Engineer. -9- .. e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a fioor area ratio of.30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk. in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for . the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as ali abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. -10- .. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 2211(1 day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 26th day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney -11- .. EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map iii the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to 'preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment ofthe Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single- family dwelling unit. - 12 - .. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Zone District Dimensional Requirement Proposed Requirement Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot Lâ€ž._ ..... .... 15,000............. 11,237 Lot 2................. .... 15,000............ 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lotl........... .. ... ..... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2........................ 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot -Minimum Percent-of-Open-Space-- -Â·- --Ne Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft./each add' 1 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses iii the surrounding area. - 13- .. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics ofthe property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES ~ Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the sinaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R-15 zone district. With respectto the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single-family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity ofthe proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities. or other utilities to service the proposed development. - 14 - .. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Adequate public facilities are either already iii place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense iii order to meet the expected demand. No reductions iii density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage. soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5. above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results iii a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant does not propose an increase ill the amount of al jowed density. -15- .. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed ]ot ]ayout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES -16- .. A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non-residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists 110 "significant" natural or man-made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing: proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials. and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan - 17 - .. an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed developm ent. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade. and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single-family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted iii an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference o f any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOEN IT COMPLY? ~ YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building,permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park. Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD. the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property' s built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. -18- .. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded iii perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial. or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant is not proposing ally common park, open space, or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose all undue burden on the City' s infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC), adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network. provides adequate pedestrian and 4-ecreational trail. facilitiesand minimizes. the_use-of.security--gates-â€žThe_ proposed_._____._______ access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both of the proposed single-family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. - 19- .. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single-family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented iii an appropriate manner. 5. Streets iii the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Criteria #3, #4, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD clevelopment plan. The phasing plan_shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities. payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. -20- .. EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached singledamity or duplex dwelting unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single-family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only i f the following standards are met. 1. Single-familv. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES ---Â·Â·--- Â·The portion~-ofÂ·the section-above relateâ‚¬]402'Â·the replacement-after-demolition of-oneÂ·-or- two--- -- __ - detached residential units or a duplex dwelling", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single-family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. - 21 - .. EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required wheneT,er leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential" Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of th-e surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements o f this Title. - 22 - .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R-15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding. drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide. avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the qiihcliT11qinii Ap.fign standards LAToiild resiilt in incompatibility with, the-Asper]--Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals o f the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. -23- .. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. - 24 - .. EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17,2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant -- At the- December- _11_2003_meeting.- the-Development Review-Committee 1-eviewed.the_ _._ following project: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single-family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zoning: â€¢ 517 Park Circle is located in the R-15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: -25- .. Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet â€¢ The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B-Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R-15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R-15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology iii the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). â€¢ Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19.166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. â€¢ Park Fee - The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. â€¢ Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. â€¢ Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the -"~- Efifid-Ult-CallE- ~"Pet-th-at-Sedtioft--the-bpplicatit~-is-ffequifed-[63Ubihir--alighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: â€¢ Encroachment - An encroachment license is needed for alI improvements in the ROW including the berms. â€¢ Site Distance - The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. â€¢ Drivewav - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown. the driveway is along the property line. -26- .. Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the , Sanitation District as early as possible iii the design phase /DRC/517ParkCircle - 27 - 9- 4. c#*Â·Â· xy.4 Fl ......7 + ..'...#-'.,x P.1 \ 4 EXHIBIT E - 9 i \ h*Â·Â·. -te Â» ~ LOT SIZE ANAL,YSIS . 91 / f y .:6 1.:.Â· 3~ I. 1 2\~4/~ 1 4 ... â‚¬2.-t Â» I k / Ff-fÂ«,4ff)- -;-~4--/ Of--i.jut .i/ f - /-- ~ l6>99 ~Â·~~~ Mry\41.43\9 ip >4#01 / 11,237 sq. ft. lot 7ly Subject Site & ... ' 11,428 sq. ft. lot - 17 4,200 approx. homes ~ 200 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot v. .' t. ...p: 3,373 sq. ft. home i 501 Park Circle A ~Ekl 1--- / * :41494-1,1 15,336 sq. ft. lot F O>/4, A// ,<~/ ~;9 <*[fj>3 2,699 sq. ft. home ./ %440> /44 *P' / 437 4 N , 2 f -99- /lit:* 4/7 3 1 512, 1 9\ N- /i / / -%0\. 4/ 1 1 ./ i .... 1 - ~-- - //Nt f-i{--.,-fi:93- <49- 11---fivi~~~3 r- A -f Qui~ - I \91}U . 7 6. A % - - '.- - - Â· 2- \ /.a, - I . ..1 ' 1 .0>9 2. .. V In i . 1 0-;=-~4< /- \ 200 Park Circle 1 1 .Â· Fl [4*1*hat:4 : 15 856 sq. ft. lot . t.4 e f.24 7 Gg:M=:,Â·, , ' A \-4-21,-- 1 L 4 4 V// 7 2,674 sq. ft. home i f / /-7 -/Â»1 N / <V 1 ./ et=/ i / ~ 190 Park Circle . "fil; 1 I .If 1-* l ff leÂ·â€¢Ae# f 4 18,259 sq. ft. lot I / 4/ =4%44 1 040,1,1 1 Â¢ i. \ 3,004 sq. ft. home 1 / . -9 ..l /\.1 r -94 1.f 243?8. 1 ~ 4 /~Ft 13}3*1 / , f>/t~Z.,1 / r===.--.. -2.-= . 9-31 6 -17 1 1 1- 1 1 :M <F--- 1 *43* f earl -LE 1 1 '1*W 41>ilt / 1,1 ,-344' Â« 6-21 ~ Â·Â· - 11 F : ' ' 711-- . J : 1 L 4- + 4- 44.3. - I . -+L_1& ter 1 11-\ 9 / : 1 ..9/ 510 Park Circle : . r.-112.4 - h , i_ i IT-1 - T.T Tri-Plex finA7L_' L 14.1.7 .T=Â»,- 8,200 sq. ft. lot \ 1591 sq. ft./unit ~ ~t~ =-' q. 1 0.- 1 / 444 I _11.â€ž -7 1 _ 1~9 Li~ AM( c 1-1-324---NI F &-1++ 1 1-137 1 4 1 .I, U â€ž TJ , 1212,2 - Â·Â· 1 , \ N . ,##N/ 13> Â· *94-. R*f "0-4, -t Â·Â· . 1 1 1 46*RE:e! ; ./8:s<Â«,~IÂ«I' e1 /' " I #I.// 1 44~,2~t.1 eg* f p>*et. ~1 - ----- 4,03 1 1 ,- I::Â·, * 7 et:*a Il f /46</15Â» // 1 Â·Â· , hrtÂ»- t=iliE 'al. "Ill J 0?** Â£ IF â€ž I. 1 I +422 ' &....1 , Al- 1 1 .bl 1 41" 1 ..... WA / 1!30 1 / 40â€¢ %:.-- te. \ 9 [ 3 3 ' f ~ Â· iJ. '- LM>37~ 1 -.-- ixâ€ž>0 2.'\ N - -7 A 924 \ \ ) 3 21\ \ 44% ---=Ag. 41 .-i A t ~0 9 :1 1.1 /6. i.... 4 '--/' Eff f :292&1,4 < .gy.22*g Â£ 1 ./ .1 6 . 1 I / 744 / , j . t.2. -/'i 1 1-3 _j~::~i-T~~~ ~~~~:ff 3[lugAV 31.1 STAN ~SON j EXHIBIT p SETBACK ANALYSIS Planning â€¢ Urban , Landscape Architecture , Transportation Studies - I *- Project Management 200 Egr MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 4 February 2004 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Conlmunity Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 . Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support ofthis variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the propehy line. As you can see *om the analysis, there is little uniformity in the Dont setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However, a good number ofthese are less than ten feet, and the median setback oftbe nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness ofthe request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the Dont will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear ofthe parcel. -In the case ofLot 2, the proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass ofthe building on the plane ofthe street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities ofthe proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate_to...Â®IltagÂ«mAjf-yeu_havedidher~questionsÂ»nlrf ......_.___.._~_. - . _--_~~_ -~~F~~ -- ---fliIS~ mattEr. 11 I ' Very truly yours, - Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC EncE Ce: Applicants et t- A Ad Â· 13\ .-1~4:9 al......d A Pi_ANPUNG .AND DEFIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRNÂ«TE SECTOR CLIENTS ASPEN PLANNING &'m)NING COMMISSION Minu~MARCH 02,2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting o f the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P&Z members present were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of"actual use". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zoning was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or determination regarding the parking garage. Johnson continued that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi-family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded that it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it with Joyce and then come back to the commission. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from January 13, February 3 and 4,2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT - 517 Park Circle Jasmine.Iygre opened the continued.public_hearing on_the_Wagar_PU-D_ amendment; public notice was received on February 17% Scott Woodforistated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R-15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single-family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single-family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR- be allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district (page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with aresidence at 4,236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R-15 zone district allowed 15,000 1 ASPEN PLANNIN-& ZONING COMMISSION 1Jlnutes MARCH 02,2004 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,4=28 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR.) Woodford stated that if P&Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee-in-lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part o f this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor be less than the floor area allowed in the R-15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD ---Amendment-Subdivisiong and GMQS-ExemptionÂ·for the properiy-at-51-7.-Park CirÂ©le,-.subjeot Â·toÂ· -- --------....--- the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single-family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2 ASPEN PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION Minu~MARCH 02,2004 e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and in-igation system located in the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of.30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new lap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk. in compliance , with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. # Vok : 1. 6 4 AD_DOCCIC.~ comply 03 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/03/04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for Adj ourned 7pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 3 t .... MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Plann~g & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaid?lbeputy Director of Community Development FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; RESOLUTION NO. 5-,SERIES 2004 DATE: February 17.20014 1. 6 . ...p A view of the existing fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to Eli j tear down the duplex, . I subdivide the property 1 1 t._- into two lots and t construct two single- family residences. The .. driveway shown will be 4. 1 i: 2. abandoned and moved to . fL k the south for access to -- I. , --0 -1 1. ..~ one home, while the . 9. . 9 *I, .*. d existing access to the p ./. north will remain for 00 - access to the other. t..1., 1.1. i:, .. .. I . ...f#9.*32.4 PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY: Approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD), Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide ati existing duplex lot into two single- family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek. represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R-15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REI)()RT PAGE I .... PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12. 2003. a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re-building the non-conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single- family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11237 square feet and 11.428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R-15. PED zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15.000 square feet per dwelling unit). In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced the required front setback (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setback (from 10 to 53. According to the application, the two single-family residences proposed to be built would be sized iii accordance with the R-15 zone district standards for floor area, with slope reduction taken into account. Two separate, 12 wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code. a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMOS Exemption may be requested for the construction of a "Detached Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single-family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS. subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. 517 PARK CIRCLE S'l-AlÂ·'1Â· REPORT PAGE 2 .... EXISTING CONDITIONS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files. the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records. the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however. city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north. to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point. the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non-conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that lion- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non-purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration. the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non-conforming structure status. ~TAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code. amortu the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development iii order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality. more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. 111 this case. the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential. commercial. tourist. or other development purposes. An application may be applied for on a lot of less than 27.000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PI JD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. Tile subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staff's position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): 517 PARK CIRCLE S-IAFF REPORT PAGE. 3 .... MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R-15 zone district. the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15.000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements iii the R-15 zone district and the applicant' s proposed setbacks for the two new lots: R-15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard 25' 10' Setback Rear Yard Setback 10' 10. North Side Yard 10" 5' Setback South Side Yard 10' 15' Setback STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two. single-family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single-family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison) Staffs support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however. conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single-family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage iii the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single-family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the tloor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: â€¢ Tlie limitation allows the application to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, which was put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existiiig duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view-planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention. but only if the existing duplex mass were split up 517 PARK CIRCLE S'!AFF REPORT PAGE 4 .... between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced, then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views lias not been achieved. â€¢ The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. The applicants proposal to use the R-15 standards for allowable tioor area on the smaller sized lots would result iii a higher FAR than what would be achieved if the lots were the required minimum of 15.000 sq. ft.. For example. on the proposed 11,237 sq. ft. lot, 4.236 sq. ft. of tloor area would be allowed in the R-15 zone district, which results in a .37 FAR. If the lot were to instead meet the minimum lot size in the zone district (15 000 sq. ft.) and the structure were to be limited to 2,880 sq. ftâ€ž in accordance with the staff recommendation (half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAIt would be .30. The chart below illustrates these scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: Scenarios: Area in R-15 Applicants 11,237 sq. ft. 4,236 sq. ft. .38 Proposal: 11,428 sq. ft. 4,249 sq. ft. .37 Compliance with R-15 Mi 11 i m uin 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. .30 Lot Size: Staff 11,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .25 â€¢ Without the PIJD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single-family structures would not be allowed on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two-single family residences. staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood. STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F. the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 541 is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetseape, rather than being setback. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the apartment complex to the south. The applicant has agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10') in exchange for the reduced setbacks on the north. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single-family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 .... DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B). in order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. Per staff' s recommendation of limiting the size of the two single-family residences. the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If P&Z approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase iii tloor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all o f the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17,2003. The comments from that meeting are attached iii Exhibit D. STAFF S-MARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment. Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as plit forth in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision. and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle- ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings - Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: Application 517 PARK CIRCLE S'rAFF REPORT PAC iE 6 .... RESOLUTION NO. 27 , (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek. represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMOS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks: and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code. Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission. the Community Development Director. and relevant referral agencies: and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code. GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, -7- .... according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard: and. WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where, by a to (--3 vote, recommended City Council approve the PIJ D Amendment, Subdivision, and GMOS Exemption. with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter: and, NOW, TIIEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed iii Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single- family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way. including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located iii the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. rhe applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings. but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees. impacts fees. and building permit fees shall be paid. -8- .... 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area of the proposed single- family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 5,770 sq. ft., which is the amount of floor area of the existing duplex. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PHI) Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section. subsection. sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court ofcompetentjurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 17.2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk -9- .... EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential" Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies atid goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area." which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design ancl by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land lise. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments. is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with. final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction oftwo detached single- family dwelling unit. -10- .... B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (uiiits measured iii feet or square feet) Zone District Dimensional Requirement Proposed Requirement Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot L ................. 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2.................. 15,000. 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lotl.... .............. 15,000............... 11.237 Lot 2.................. 15,000............... 1 1,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Min i iii um North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 1 0 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Mininium Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft./each add' 1 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) lIp to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: -11- .... a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic. transit. pedestrian circulation. parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally. staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for tile site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed Pt_JD and of the surrounding area. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception ofthe smaller tlian minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R-15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes. staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single-family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that ati appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) rrhe availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically. the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: - 12 - .... a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal. and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense iii order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically the maximum density of a Pt.J D may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed. due to runoff. drainage. soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. e) The proposed developmeiit will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure. road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features ofthe site. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density. therefore. are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically. the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The sites physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5. above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results iii a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to. the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. -13- .... STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site s natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the publics health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique. provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past. or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YE.% I The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement ofthe Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. - 14 - .... ~TAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? YES A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non-residential land uses. spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A rhere are no non-residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. preserves existing significant vegetation. and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man-made features requiring preservation. Sonic landscapincy along the tr edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screeninu and privacy to tile structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety. character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes. legibility of the building's use. the buildings proposed massing, proportion, scale. orientation to public spaces and other buildings. use of materials. and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan - 15- .... an architectural character plan. which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of. the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical. natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property' s solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding o f snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single-family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements ofthe Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be liglited in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be iii compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting 01 site features. buildings. landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park, Open Space. or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space. or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park. open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development. considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property. provides visual relief to the property' s built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. - 16 - .... 2. A proportionate. undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PED or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the Citys infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities. public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? Yl.s According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC). adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. 1. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road. a pedestrian way. or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both of the proposed single-family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include proning or moving existing landscaping. hi addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety iii an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. - 17- .... 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the lintited nulliber of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single-family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements ott or connections to. the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and eniergency access. 6. Security gates. guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Criteria #3. #4, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4. the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating. to the extent practical. occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing. and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NoT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. - 18 - .... EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation. as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions 01 Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling. or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single-family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single-flimily. Ul order to qualify for a single-family exemption. the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520: b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single-family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the at-nount of floor area of the existing duplex. there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for tlie "net" increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since tliere is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. - 19 - .... ExHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Tlie future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential" Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land lise. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES n. COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements o f this Title. -20- .... 8'rAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R-15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage. rock or soil creep, mudtlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health. safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope. the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards. so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas. and/or the goals of the community. STAFFFIND1NG: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide .justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. -21- .... D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing iii compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. ~TAFF FINDING: DOES H COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City. or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists oil the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable iii this instance. -22 - .... EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17.2()03 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder. Water Department Tom Bracewell. Sanitation District Brian Flynn. Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed. the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single-family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zoning: â€¢ 517 Park Circle is located in the R-15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: -23- .... Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet â€¢ The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B-Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R-15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R-15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology iii the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). â€¢ Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20Â°/0 the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. â€¢ Park Fee - The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. â€¢ Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410. Residential Design Standards. â€¢ Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan. with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: â€¢ Encroachment - An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the ber 111S. â€¢ Site Distance - The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. â€¢ Driveway - Per the City code. driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown. the driveway is along the property line. - 24 - .... Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a tloor area greater than 5000 sti sprinkler systems will be needed. ... Sanitation District: (i) The existing o tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC/517ParkCircle -25- r.h un Vh.. . 1 99, 43 fa/6 664 /Al.* -' 1 1 4 ./ - . * L \ EXHIBIT E ' 4/ I \ .\ i I~ -- Â«dmhoÂ·A 0@1/:B--. \ LOT SIZE ANALYSIS \J l / 2 / , , 1 1 /\ / /1 / , , I. ,<(p / // Iii 1 41 \ 4 997 /4 /\ / , / Â¢44Â¥2 4 234.. \ 'ed j , Subject Site ' $@f < 11,237 sq ft lot /'~ ~ ~~~~ ~ 1% / f. / -b - e.21 . Â«42 . 11428 sq ft lot ~ 1 ' I. , Ff ~) 41/ / 4,200 approx homes .// 4/42 /-t\\ f / (f __~ ) f 200 Park Circle 1 15,271 sq ft lot 1 11, . . 1 //P 1,073 sq ft home / 1 4 1 f 501 Park Circle ~ f f'%â€¢ , Â»%2 / 424 2.699 sq ft home ,11 Iii/ 1. i f / i 1 1%94'e / , e.,4 '' > 11' 1) / /9 \ / 7/ j / V Z.. 91 ~ 1 --- -4. 'tz ~ pf . 5 15,856 sq ft lott 200 Park Circle C - 1 44Â£,U*22%3673 < <4 f'%#44 49 Apartments A .NI. 0 2 2,674 sq ft home 1 P / *. 2 / 09 , / . ox'iy li v -44\Â»41\ ~ , 49/ :*ff X~ ~ / \ 190 Park Circle 4/ / I 18.259 sq ft lot 1/ / 8 / 4 1 3,004 sq ft home /7 71 1 1 f *f 1 11 213 /1@2,1 ' \9713 1 / --/ 11 i . M. &, 4 :7-0- 91 Â»11 //f// / \------------ 1 | I ~-X / -1 - 510 Park Circte , 1- 28. 7 1/ Tri-Plex 8,200 sq ft lot _ 32*1.-_1 /1 11 4 6, 4 9 ---- 1.591 sq ft/unit 1, 21 1- 3- J Z -1 1 / 1 24,11 ~ 1 L.11 -,7 1 / 4, > -1~Â¢-34-4 -4 ilt ~la~;1=F Eg-~I L--r.J// eÂ« , 4444 1 / 4. 4 1 / f 99/Pt p Â· 91,4 11 Q 1111 ---1 1 1 , -1/ I ?41 11 / 1 \1 1 1-04/ji t.lid -- '' v , 14 b '1 1 1 1 -Ud *h el , Â· f + 6= 1 1 41, 1 i. fla , , 92/ 1 ; ;l Ai rn / Dll lig -Â»*kes' e. e EXHIBIT F Ill SLLN CLAUSON ' SETBACK ANALYSIS Planning â€¢ Urban . Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies - Project ManagemeÂ·nt 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 4 February 2004 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.com -Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support ofthis variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However. a good number ofthese are less than ten feet, and the median setback ofthe nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space ofthe tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case ofLot 2, the proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane ofthe street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area ofthe site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities ofthe proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, ifyou have further questions about this matter. fsrK truly yours, f > C Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants 04 PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CUENTS f f 4/ / \U \7/ 1 W "-1 1/7 0/,u v f /,L 9 -1 x i / , *091\ 1 x ~1-11 M /1 X q / f -/ 1 1 \1 0 t. ..4 // 4 X ./., / '2 -~-~~ i -171-lt'. , : / b. 1 / 61% 0/ f X - -299-'.2.'Â·Â·Â·6.7 -x .,% 1 .1 4. ..11 - 21: 1 -- 4 Â«44\ L , 1/ \/01 _#i liwi B 3 -Â« h\ 1,11/ / 7--10 1 -1-2\ ./ , 'LX.JJA \ N\4 ..FlÂ·,74 '1 \/ h / 2 - 1 /4-4-Lit, 1 4 U 2, A,il i 1 l~ -1.4-22(4" F / 90%4404 f>f--->k j. / ~ / f , ''- Ul ~ 1 / Setback Range = 0.0' - 54.7' / 1/ / A-'Â·1 4 ifIA A. \ C.,11 Ji Setback Median = 9.9' i \ u\ ~ 4:1: 2/ .1'-7~cFr- \4 L if lu /7 ..1 Z 1 Lt/ /36.--" 4 '41 \ ta-Â£1 - (/3Â«4 -- 02\\ V '' UN#i i c ,\>â‚¬ 7 1 .. -, 9 - t--6 1 1 1 . ilt LIZ* . i \ 2 N VA 1 L-1 /7 Ii" , 06 7 11 ~ 01-- ~ Al 1 0 Â©3[13-L_-1 , 1- A-1 f / --' 40224 V SNOISIAErM SISXIBUV 108(11@S L-&:21'V ([fld I.I!0&313(I/ tull it J.1 n[VI,OSEÂ¥ N~>sn.D N 9/Â«24 f f fÂ»00/9 \-f f 447 6/\ v 9 /1 --113â‚¬~ 1 i 12 1 J\\ / 7 1/1 3 / / U \. 1 NT.\1 1 L N\ Â¢ E-11 , / , v r./4,Â«ArÂ» //1 V' 3 ~ W 40 t - lili Ali . r h / i iii A -Lt / 1 ...2.- 1 f.....9 V / , / \ / I. 24Â« A 'i- 43 C / /-2 -* 1 V ..Â·AÂ·Â· -Â· f 2. - **#*4 \.% 1/ -4.LAV) 1 '' '. ,-2 . \.21 1 /1 1 \ 1,/'/1 \ ~ .2-2 ,--/ Ml f . , I I / 1.r ' j' / 7 1 / 4 \\ \.C -h ~ .~ yÂ· 17 .......k --IL Ok ' f, JI>#-4 4 ' 1 / / Lck / PYV 3%&Â£*r..r / 2 /1*~\ ..1. F N X m .V E, / Setback Range = 0.0' - 54.7' \9/ flÂ«fÂ»jl.-41\ \ 10\~-4/ ff Or -vtÂ« 4 .2/--bÂ«*>y: . ~.ybv~ / Setback Median = 9.9' 1 4 1 0/ r-Jf-/Jf ~Â»cur~~_ 14 f -- -,LÂ·' v ke Ax / \\Â£ . nTt , n h\ . V.- .. h //4 - <01/ 11-914 1 -Lt--1 /3/ Â»NA >./4,Â« /1 X A 9%42 Â» 1 \074~-02 L L--tcj Er -- 1 --\- - \-- - \ --U 7, AÂ·~1_ CIZID 1 f r jo h . / N / ..,4&..);1 44/ 4.-1-/ ~.-74.ii.~0~ \ 241 - --31 f 1 u Â£ - ~t - 1 2/ MV.4 571-J \ U 1 1 -i p 1 0-11-- ~ P~ p U~=1~ v 1 Al I Und Ll!1!1~IT .Y,9 ril vtÂ·jos,v Nos - ~ Mouqies OCIVHO7O0 'NEdSV SNOISIAZIN sTEXIBUÂ¥ Mouqies , r Ju.,q,bpi Ilâ€¢,1*01 NI.INV Â¥003 Â£t,tuq@, 2 ([fld Â·IDI!.AL.1.G/ 1.NUAL 1 11111% NIV}N Â·1 (*,C '.11\1...\').1\1)1<Al< :133HS 3,LVa 17--1 . IN 4 0 d ~ 0 (U L g ~19] 0 LÂ» 04 2 44 -64 00 d d ee UU 11 11 0 34 L._fÂ» ; I.\ / LE ff ~1/ 1 4 7 - 41-----4, 3-1--Â«f~ 4-Â« l___~ L ~ FLJ rÂ© F,01:191%KiT-1.- ~ r / // Al i â€¢A 3 009 9Â«j 1 ll 99Â«foft 0 / Â»f C Â«4004> - 1 4 1 .tz ci 0' /\ 45 1/5 / 0 4 Â»--24 /1 L 0~24 Lung < 0 â€¢4 /f Â«1211 0 . Mapt ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 517 Park Circle, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Monday, 19 April, 2004 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, F.L. (Stan) Clauson, AICP. ASLA being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: _X_ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _X_ Posting of notice. By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 2Â§ day of March, 2004, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .r AC= ~0 TIME 5 I - PLACE ..0. C,r, H# 00 South 6,10.~ 31- 4 CoiinÂ¢,1 Roorn PURPOSE: â€¢0.-4 - 4.- 04 louÂ«.1 Â» Coll.- ...CL__ ~ .â€¢....In .....c M- * .te t.Â· 11... ./. 1 1 j 2-Â· .. u .3 1 i v..m, IL,L '0 JZ .. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signat6--1 L V The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 30 day of 0-01 A.1 â‚¬ - , 200*, by Ft- 62 t-2 - r34.- 0,-5 -*- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: \ l Pl /Lf i ~53 -_-<- DED N<~3 Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE NOTICE IS HEREB Y GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday April 19, 2004, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council. City Council Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and to reconstruct the demolished duplex into two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow reduced front setbacks (from the required 25' to 10'), reduced north side setbacks (from the required 10' to 5') and smaller than ninimum lot sizes (11,237 and 11,428 square foot lots are proposed, whereas the R-15 zone district requires minimum 15,000 square foot lots). The two parcels subject to the request are legally described as the north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, (or by email at scottw@ci. aspen.co.us). s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mavor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on March 27,2004. City of Aspen Account #'Z/:2'//ffi: i 1 .'2~ia*2 Use AveryÂ® TEMPLATE 5160Â® Il jtleâ‚¬/Â»62' En /Â£62 -*- ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AGLEY JOSEPH A BECKER ALAN K AUTHORITY 424 PARK CIR #TH5 950 MATCHLESS DR 530 E MAIN ST #001 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BENTLEY CARL F BERNARD RANDY CARSON BARBARA 427 PARK CIR 100 HARKNESS RD PO BOX 10298 ASPEN, CO 81611 PELHAM, MA 01002-9776 ASPEN, CO 81612 CENTENNIAL ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 272409 100 LUKE SHORT CT ASPEN, CO 81611 FT COLLINS, CO 80527-2409 ASPEN, CO 81611 COOKMAN WILLIAM THOMAS CUNNINGHAM CAITLYN E DAY ISABEL T & ESTER T 508 PARK CIR 425 PARK CIR #Al 120 TURTLE COVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-9610 DEGRAEVE ALAIN DICKENSON GWEN F EPLER ANDI E PO BOX 7975 420 EAST HYMAN PO BOX 785 ASPEN, CO 81612 ' i ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 FISHER CONSTANCE A GLOOR JOHN L GREENWOOD KRYSTINA 330 ANAYA RANCH RD 500 PARK CIR 1050 MATCHLESS DR #2 GALISTEO, NM 87540 , i , ASPEN, CO 81611 I ASPEN, CO 81611 HIGHT NEIL C & SEWELL KATHRYN HUAVINH INK! COFFEE COMPANY 520 E COOPER AVE PO BOX 2439 PO BOX 7961 ASPEN, CO 81611 , ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 KARAUS LINDA MARIE & GREGORY KRIEBEL KATHLEEN LUU TONG KHON DONALD PO BOX 910 435 E MAIN ST 510 PARK CIR I ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ' ASPEN, CO 81611 LUU VINH MERZBACH NINA & WILLIAM MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 8513 PO BOX 3465 77 ASPEN WAY ASPEN, CO 81612 1 , ASPEN, CO 81612 ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 MOYER MARY MUNROE KRISTIN EPLER NAGLE MELINDA LEE 424 PARK CIR #6 PO BOX 785 PO BOX 914 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 Jam Free Printing i~ AVERYÂ® www. avery. com Use AveryÂ® TEMPLATE 5160Â® I. . * AVERYÂ® 5160 NARAT BENJAPORN PAULIDES BROOKE A PAULIDES HERBERT B & CAROLYN F FLAT 9 22 RED LION ST 415 PARK CIRCLE 160 CONCORD RD LONDON WelR4PS, UK ASPEN, CO 81611-2478 LONGMEADOW, MA 01106 ROWARS CHARLES M PIERCE ROBERT KING PITKIN COUNTY 4990 SOUTHWEST 52ND STREET - STE PO BOX 3118 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 201 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DAVIE, FL 33314 SABATASSO MARY L FAMILY TRUST SMISEK LINDA L E SMITH KATHLEEN M 118 CHANNEL POINTE MALL 429 PARK CIR C-3 P O BOX 9173 MARINA DEL RAY, CA 90292 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612-9173 SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB WALDRON K BRENT SPECK KIM JENNIFER CO SUE COOK COATES REID & WALDRON C/O PO BOX 9912 PO BOX 8788 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOLPIN LAUREN 424 PARK CIR TH-3 ASPEN, CO 81611 Jam Free Printing IE AVERYÂ® www.avery.com .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 19 Â£42 , Aspen, CO 1-/ SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 6~0~ 7**72Â»-0,200 - 4J i R [ 44-- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I. .lif- A 1.479 1 -// l.1 4-)Q~- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Ji- Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper o f general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, , waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide , and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not ' less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Communtty Development Department, which contains the information described iii Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) J Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However. the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. A v IV (5*u.Â« 01 -%=0>g>l r V \ 20*nature V The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged befor~ me this3Oday of TY-k.,ct.... , 2008, by -EIS---4.6 A-7-0* WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL â€¢ My commission expires: 4* Y. - e *5... . Notary Public f ~ SARAH 9 ~ i OATES ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 71% ~1 ~uly 11â‚¬}ticed'~ learin R after considering reffir,~tnendationis bil he Planning and Zoning Comthission. the Com- ~ punity [)evelo~iment 1)irector. and relevant refer- ~ ~al agencies: and, WHEREAS. pursuant to Section 26.480 ot~ he Land Use Code. Subdivision approval may be ~ tranted by the City Council at a cltily noticed pub- 1 ie hearing after con<idering reconinendations ~ )y the Planning and Zoning On]Ilitission. thaJ fommunity Development I)irâ‚¬'ctor, ad relevant~ ~ferral ailencies; and. r WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of.~ the I.and Use Code. (,MUS Exemption approval ~ -nay be granted by the Community l)evelopment] )irector; however, according to Section l 26.304.060 of the I.and Use Code the applicant i has agreed to combine this administrative review j ~ith the other land use approvals sought: and, WHEREAS. the I'liD Amendment and Subdi vision review by the Planningl and Zonine Corn- mission requires a public hearing and this appli- cation was reviewed at a pblitic hearing where the recommendations of the C Immunity Develop- inei,t [)irector and cqmments from the public- were heard: and, W'HEREAS, during a reg-pr meeting on Feb- . PUBUC NOTICE r;Il PARK CIRC KE 11 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public ~' hearing will be held on Monday April 19,2004, at , a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council City Couren Room. City Halt 130 S. Galena St. Afped to consider an application h PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemp- tion to subdivide the existing duplex lot at 517 ' Park Circle into two single-family lots and to uti- b lize the two development rights from the demot- Ished duplex to construct two single-gamily resi- 6,denies. The PUD Amendment is requested to al- Â· low smaller than required minimum lot sizes for the R-15 zone district and reduced front and north side yard setbacks. For further iniormation, contacI Scon Woodtord at the City of Aspen Community Devel- opment Department. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. CO (970) 9'2{85102, scottw@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Helen Kalin Ktanderud. Mayor ' Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on March 27,2004. (1358) b . .. Charles IMI. lftopwars February 24,2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: My name is Charles M. Rowars and I reside at 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen. My home directly overlooks the residence where Rich Wagar lived and wants to live. I am writing to you to express my support of the proposed lot split at 517 Park Circle. I have no opposition to the lot split and your recommendation of the lot split will provide an opportunity for improved redevelopment of the fire-damaged duplex. The resulting two houses will be more in keeping with the open qualities of the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staff is proposing to restrict the available floor area for both properties to that of the original duplex. I feel that the restriction as currently proposed by the planning staff is inappropriate. It is my opinion that such a restriction is unfair to the parties involved and that both parties should be allowed to develop homes in accordance to the floor area tables appropriate to the current zone district. Very truly yours, /s/ Charles M Rowars Charles M. Rowars 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-8037 .. H. Montgomery Loud 401 Smuggler Mtn. Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 17, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Since we have lived in the neighborhood we certainly have the highest regard for the quality of our neighbors' homes. The proposed lot split allowing separate dwellings will provide for improved replacement of the building with two separate and more open sites. This would enhance the overall appearance of this extensive view plane. Very truly yours, xyâ‚¬~3442 42 H. Montgomer# Loud / /HML 02/19/2004 14:58 FAX 702 362 4348 HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT G .002 Feb,19, 2004 1:43PM ~ No.3957 P. 2 . MEMORANDIIM Date: February 17,2004 Â· P To: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Attn: Scott Woodford, Planner From: Cleny Wendel Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado I drive by 517 Park Circle two or three times a day as 1 reside at 201 Silverlodc Drive, Aspen. I am writing Uns letter to express my support oftheproposed lot split. I am of the belief that two single-family homes instead of one large duplex will improve the visual impact to the neighborhgod I have also been informed thattbeplanning staffhas proposed restricting the available floor area to both properties to that of the original duplex. I believe that this is an inappropliate restriction, as the resulting houses will be too smail to provide for a reasonable return on their investment. It is my opinion, as a neighbor, that all propeities in this diSUiCt should be allowed to develop homes of Ieasonable size, in accordance with the floor area tables appropri#e to tile zone district. f , Ge.~Wetidd 1 ~ ~ 92- E 84 9 q / 1 1. ~STAN (LAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 15 January 2004 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 City o f Aspen FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com Community Development Department WEB: www.scaplanning.com 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Scott: On behalfofthe applicants and in response to comments provided by Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer, follow DRC review, we are providing a revised Dimensional Requirements Form and site plan for the proposed lot split and PUD at 517 Park Circle. Along with this, are providing an analysis of existing slopes on the property and revised slope reduction calculations. The slope reduction analysis shows that areas of steep slopes on the proposed Lot 2 of the subdivision exceed 25% ofthe existing lot area. We have therefore reduced the lot area of Lot 2 by 25% for purposes of calculating allowable floor area. For purposes of clarity, we have revised the dimensional requirements form into two sheets, one for each of the lots to be created. Lot 2 has been reduced by 2,857 s. f. to a lot area of 8,571 s. f. for purposes of calculating floor area. After consulting with Sarah Oates regarding the appropriateness of reassigning floor area within the PUD, we have averaged the allowable floor areas of Lot l and Lot 2, so as to obtain an equitable distribution for both property owners. This is reflected in the allowable and proposed floor areas for each lot as shown on the two Dimensional Requirements Form sheets. The site plan has been modified to show that a variance is requested for front and north side yard setbacks on each lot. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from 25 feet to 10 feet. We believe that this is consistent with the front setbacks on other adjacent properties and allows for better utilization ofthe property. Increasing the south sideyard setback to 15' and reducing the north sideyard setback to 5 feet on both lots will allow a greater separation between Lot 2 and existing residential development, while shifting both houses slightly toward the County easement granted to the property owners on the North. This also allows for better utilization ofthe property. I understand that these additional variance requests will require renoticing for the public hearing. An additional change shows the existing driveway at Lot 1 being abandoned. Lot 1 will continue to take access through the easement provide by the County to Wagar. Lot 2 shows a new curb cut that is spaced 10 feet within the property line. RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUN/liES AND BVILP#19"FAIMEN .. Mr. Scott Woodford 15 January 2004 Page Two These changes should rectify the issues that were raised and allow the proposal to move forward to a public hearing before the Planning &Zoning Commission. Four copies of all documents are provided per your request. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Veryltruly yo~rs, / 9 / 1\ Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl: 1. Slope Analysis Diagram 2. Dimensional Requirements Form, 2 pages 3. Revised Site Plan, dated 13 January 2003 CC: Applicants RECEIVED JAN 1 6 1,4 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT .. / l / 1/ -/ STAN CLAUSON AssocIA-1-ES, LLC / SM'37'09X 721 -54' Planning â€¢ Landscape Architectmr Ar- *-I- 200 East Main Streetâ€¢Aspen. Co 81611 (9701925-2323 44 12* Wide Existing - fax- (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning,comâ€¢info@scaplanning.com 63 9 Driveway to Remain j - 400/,9 RACQUET CLUB ~>'~ I BOOK 466 AT PAGE 302 Â« 1 / I 14,/ \# PUD Request99'1 \Ce. Id'. . t. 10 Zoning R quirements / . 40 Ne / 5' <0 \\ Lot 1 1 11,237. 5sf Properly / / i Cak ed Flo r 4,236sf /-'--I-'-I- ropos d noor Area= 098sf / 10 1 â‚¬P 1 9 % 1 Abandon Existing Curb Cut - h,212- af-cm/c J % % 40 - Re-Locate Ebsting Berm , and Existing Vegetation OT ~ 1- -- 998 - 1 67 t / h 2WAR 1, 8.83sf P p rt j sp/60757 ~0~~ 'Al' 5 /*4/ , S/*e Reduc n L t Â«7 8 sf ..2,*5 3/l 1culated 00 e 945,5 715ENCHUARY.\ ELEV: 972.82 roposed o# e =14,9 s 10 .0 ~*(DA/ L 0, W#. â€ž0,0 5'Wide Sidewalk \Te. 5 , New 12' Wide Driveway 11 / GAS OL LOCATE Wagar-Detweiler Property 17 Nov. 2003 1 - / Revised-13 Jon 2003 toi z 16 Option Cl 1 "=30' s GAS 20 LOG>Im RECEW â‚¬9 20' 30' 45' 60' FOUND /5 REBAR._~ poo*7,01 Y//////A Y/////////A 13.39' WITNESS CORNER 5' Wide Sidewalk JAN 1 6 200'f/7/Â»1 \ ASPEN n",1, - . -,pvT 0 Al I I STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC / Planning â€¢ 1.andscape Archilecture ~ , 200 East Main Streetâ€¢Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 , fax- (970)920-1628.www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ into@scaplanning.com / l \ 4 Ill / 1 1 / /i Area o exist g house and grading . 1 - \1 11,4/ 1 993 1 rh i rf* J 1, 1 r 0.0-- i.& 11 1 4 f \Ct 9 4. / Vi 1 1 cap -Uti I. *.% -/ il' V / f . 1 fit L 34 </ 1 f ?9## C C j ~%/0 11 ,/ / 1,\ 1///// 4 11 / 0\ A / V 1 4-f )5:I 1 RECEIVED V- JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~ 20%-30% slopes 898sf Wagor-Detweiler Property ~ 30% slopes or greater 2770sf 07 January 2004 27704Â§Â¥=3219sf Slope Analysis 1"=30' 11428.83* .25=2857.2 3219sf > 2857.2sf, therefore, 0 10' 20' 30' 45' 60 25% reduction for floor area applies P///////1 r////7/,1 Y//////////1 1 V//7///1 4//9////1 1 1.1 .. Attachment B-1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM - Lot 1 Project: Wager Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: -Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet (fathering parcel) Lot Area: Lot 1 = 11,237 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number ofresidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Not determined Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: Proposed.- duplex 4,236 4,098 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 ft. Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 i Proposed: 25 1 On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: Minimum of 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required. N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback (feet): Existing: 15 Required: 15 Proposed: 10 Rear Setback. Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 25 CombinedÂ¥/Ri Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 Side Setback. Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11.237 square feet. a minimum front setback often (10) feet, and a minimum side vard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN Rl 11, r.q,1, Fra, --'.CNT .. Attachment B-2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM - Lot 2 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet (fathering parcel)9 Lot 2= 11 428 square feet Lot Area: Lot 2 - 8.571 square feet. with slope reduction at 25% maximum (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: 4 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: Proposed: duplex 3,959 / 4,098 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 12 Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 ft_ Proposed: 25 ft- On-Site parking-. Existing: 1 Required: 2 Proposed: Miniram of 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required. N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback (feet). Existing: 15 Required: 15 Proposed: 10 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 CombinedER: Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback. Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 Side Setback. Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 10 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size for the PUD of 11,428 square feet. a minimum front setback often (10) feet and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN BUII 11'Aln arn, rm,cAIT .. -X-<h $*71 /3 Attachment B 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Proj ect: Wager. Detweiler PUD Amendment. Sdbdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet Lot Area: 19.166 square feet (approximately) for slope reduction (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed.- Not determined Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: ,r â‚¬ Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: 5,380 Proposed: 4236-Lotl duplex duplex 4,249 -Lot 2 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 & Allowable: 2% 1 Proposed: 28 ft Access bldg. height: Existing: NIA Allowable: 15 1 Proposed: 25 ft On-Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed: Not dderimned % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: NIA Proposed: Not ddermined % Open Space- Existing: 85 Required.- N/A Proposed: Not determined Front Setback (feety. Existing: 25 Required: 15 Proposed: 15 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Combined F/R: Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Side Setback Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required. 10 Proposed: 20 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11 237 square feet. RECFIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT GE ~STAN CLACJSON ~SOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAsT MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 4 February 2004 FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.Scaplanning.com Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support ofthis variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness ofthe request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane ofthe street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area ofthe site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities ofthe proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions about this matter. >g truly yours, Stan ClaI[son, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants &1 1%51 PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENT5 O(IVNO7O0 'NREISV 2/* 5 SNOISIAIH SISKIEuÂ¥ }Iouqias 1/0.-1-N.IKINV \ K 11-141% NIVPY 1 8,- W looz Â£,i.q.1 3 (Ind Â·I.II@Al.laa/' IBNEA, 11 % 11 V] 10Â«v NI,% :V I.1 " 1 ~ ~ 133HS :alva jd . E 14 1 - O 04 0-4 0 0 11 U CS C__6 U Ad 0 0 r_ r-J . X r L d- 3 ~ 41 / 1 1. N (0\ r-n 14 04Â» 49 ~ ~ [f- 4 44 1 , 9-(\ -% *ill â€¢ez J ~ H , ill / Ny E Â¥ //0 , 1 /0 \ /Â«12\N i /1 -4- / 7 VA Ld l 1 - L 0 /419 0 4 1 -00 1 A r r tyll ' 1 - N Â»41/4 4 1 1/ /~ C \17 rEJ I f Â« 04 44Â»Â»Â« Setback Rang .... ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 517 Park Circle Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesdav, Februarv 17, 2004 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, Stan Clauson (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (13) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: _X Publication of notice: -By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. -X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 22 day of January, 2004, to and including the date and time ofthe public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _X Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records ofPitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: 17 F.... 2004 TIME: 00 pat PLACE:.'.Â·. c.".11 ' 30 Swth Gal,r- St-. 3161.Â· lit- Room PURPOSE: ,--4 - ~1 Saff=$ In,O a 2,#Ili'/Imn, 101, an,1 r-,amfIC- 4 47=2= .~m@~L .... Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text ofthis Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal ofthis Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing ofnames and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature-~- -,1 The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 29 day of January. 2001 by F=- 1~6+c,0.00.-~ C>1.-..4.--- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: n ~ 24 ~ 20 a,5- v -45-L kiDID No~~ Public ' ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: â‚¬--7 -f / \-19! ) 0 Lf , 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: 4. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of ali official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice. which form wa:Â§ obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not , less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time o f the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) dafs prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage I prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet o f the property subj ect to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records o f Pitkin Count:y as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) . 0 Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise. the requirement o f an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of. and the notice to and listing of names and addresses o f owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. runt# 1 -Lf? t LÂ»U 5iAature 4 The foreooine "A ffidavit o f Notice was acknowledged beforf me this-31#day of ~ c:1 .2 L 2 J,-- -1 . 200.4, by -4331. - Â£ 1, 1 -_3 Â·Â·r-ng. . 7 / 01 -0 I m . I n - -9 . I 012 Â· = 5 %- a & : 1 5-2 i=* 9-â‚¬ E r m m 1 0 V. F:21*12#25:85#.12= 2. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL DERE@#rE -3 RE Ed ~~ 92 -- 131:>:lipiES . 3 My commission expires: 7 /43,/; 334- W I = : a E E E E SE I Z & 13 5 N .HNuOugla 4, 07 *3 i Af ~ff i j R A) 21. 9:41:igc#*E i m iN F k I E- 9 3 ..09@um- I.-lig:M 1 /_4:94= =05 Notary Public Wing@ *5# Rt K 11 1:: 5 1#V ; '473* .i. E=:E I RE.53%8 T â‚¬ UD W H k E 5. == 2/: :1 2. Wi ED-%22-'-:... C B2iE#i&**K12: 0 '<49 642 -WOID .NM@:204:19.3.= e . r.0. a. m. : - 5.._. DO c qÂ· p? i . 2 7 3 9 - 9 0 â‚¬ 7 7 5 ' 8 + fER Y Â·Â·-,1 R~ E ~ SARAH OATES .A ATTACHMENTS: iD 9 286-0 COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL (ESI [) 4002 adsÂ¥ aill ul palistiqnd 01") .6 0Â£: I ']Ualille JO St.Uni UIO inos pur quou 241 ISUOD â‚¬ t U[i N !110 tle U! IUEid uadsv 039 19 1!eula Aq .10) Â·2:01 J '.011~UU~'JaqUI 410 lulopuo,) 411Â·ON Mied Xutin 111 041 u! posed. whereas th IPH X113 00>1 1 100; I.le ID 393}19 1 3)UON 3JUON 011Hnd iN)INCIN)INV ~310}Il) 4 1 op blieNal al }sani,al '411 01 pal O UnUIâ€ž!UI -41 - 1 mo J) 57/eqi/S i ES In qad Â· e 1 UO Plati @(1 1110 0 1 â‚¬732764- .. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: â‚¬ 17 En jr~ C Z vr-l 2 --- RÂ¢ttticci SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 9 6/011 , 200_ < STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, -33 j 14 4 49 4 / -4 el r-Â·f-r (name, please print) i being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspeq Land Use Code in the following manner: ~ Publication ofnotice: By the publication in the legal notice section of ali official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the 0(~ Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, â€ž waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide j and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not tto . less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days 4,3. prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of ,200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) daKs prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agericy that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) el W Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in ally way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision o f this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended. whether such revision be made by repeal o f this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of. and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. (13, (6611--~2'll,Oft- pffnature The foregoing "Affidavit o f Notice" was acknowledged before me this IY~ day of J-yll . 2006, by 75A---6 )-,7 n-C~-' 1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: YLIAL, 9- LK -~ 7 64~ F\Ypi;24,~ .... /7.>r.Â·0 Notary Public ~ Â· :'*~ SARAH H o i OATES N < 09.Eapor ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL f -02 -7 PtlBUC NOTICE RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDI- VISION, GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 13,2003 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room. City Hall, 130 S. Calena St., Aspen, to con- sider an application submitted by Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweller and Deborah Burek requesting ap- proval 01 a Planned Unit Development Amend- ment (PUD). Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot Into two sin- gte-family lots and to reconstruct the demolished duplex into two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes (11.237 and 11,428 square foot lots proposed, whereas the Code requires 15,000 square foot lots In the R-15 zone district). The two parcels subject to the request are legally described as the north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condomtniums. " For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920- 5102, (or by email at scottw@ci.aspen.co.us). , s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commtssion Published in The Aspen Times on December 27, 2003.(1085) itract for the construction. alteration. or repair >y the WoÂ»le,-*-444â€ž*44-le lI~milignal ontract for the construction of any structure N,44,~*Ge,4* ~~9~~UUkCQ,1Â©. with i classification qualifies the holder for the Toup permitted by the W,W-Â» International r to contract for the construction. alteration. instruction with the exception of Type I and ling Code. r the construction, alteration, or repair 1Â·41*44 2nal.~12tial-2|Â£. ig specialty trades regulated by the WI;le- . f . .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 13, 2003 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption to subdivide all existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and to reconstruct the demolished duplex into two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes (11,237 and 11,428 square foot lots proposed, whereas the Code requires 15,000 square foot lots in the R-15 zone district). The two parcels subject to the request are legally described as the north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, (or by email at scottw@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Jasmine Tvere, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 27,2003 City of Aspen Account .. MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: City Engineer .......... Community Development Engineer Community Development Director Zoning Officer Housing Director Parks Department Aspen Fire Marshal City Water Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 1............ Building Department Environmental Health Electric Department Holy Cross Electric City Attorney Streets Department Historic Preservation Officer Pitkin County Planning County & City Disaster Coordinator Transportation FROM: Scott Woodford, (scottw@ci.aspen.co.us) Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5102 Fax-920.5439 RE: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of the burned out duplex (that currently sits on one lot) into two single-family lots (please see attached application for further explanation). DATE: December 5 2003 DATE OF DRC MEETING: December 17.2003 at 1:30PM. â€¢ NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO JOHN NIEWHOELINER (johnn@ci.aspen.co.us) BY NOON ON DECEMBER 17. 2003. THOSE COMMENTS WILL THEN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRC MINUTES. .. RICH ~AGAR ASSOCIATES Aspen & The Roaring Fork Valley Real Estate January 16, 2004 Stan Clausen Stan Clausen Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: City of Aspen Community Development Department. Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Form. Dear Stan, Please find enclosed the above mentioned document signed by Rich. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions. Sincerely 'yours,A Fz:ift,c-- Â» knmfer Gardner for Rich Wagar - 601 East Hyman Suite #104, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone (970) 92()-3131 â€¢ Facsimile (970) 920-1010 Email rich@9203131.com â€¢ www.wagarrealestate.com L ..: .. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Pavment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Rich Wagar (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Wagar/Detweiler PUD (hereinafter, THE PROJECD. 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter pennit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2520.00 which is for 12 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $210.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT- ( 1/ By: By: ~ ~~ Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director Date: 13 November 2003 Mailing Address: Rich Wagar c/o Wagar Associates, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 1/10/00 .. PARCEL ID: ~2737-074-01-016/01 ' DATE RCVD: ~ 11/18/03 #"COPIES:F-- -CASE NNO~A070-03 CASE NAME:~Wagar, Detweller/Burek Amendment to PUD, Subd & GMQS Exemption PLNR:| PROJ ADDR: ~517 Park Circle CASE TYP:~GMQS Exemption, Final PUD, Subdi STEPS:~ OWN/APP: Rich Wager, Dirk De ADR]517 Park Circle C/S/Z: |Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:] REP:|Stan Clauson Associates, LL ADR:~200 E. Main St C/S/Z: ~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:~970-925-2323 FEES DUE:~ FEES RCVD:| $2520.00 Rept 10326 STAT: F REFERRALS~ REF:~ - BY~ DUE: ~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ PZ: BOA: CLOSED:| BY: | DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: .. MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen Plann~g & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce AllgaieiT Deputy Director of Community Development FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; RESOLUTION NO. 3- , SERIES 2004 DATE: February 17, 2003 Aview ofthe existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The -mâ€¢Â» . Â· applicants propose to tear down the dup]ex, subdivide the property . into two lots and construct two single- family residences. The 11<1/4- driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to - the south for access to one home, while the '- existing access to the north will remain for - r. 6 access to the other. . '.7.--41,7...tio~J PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY: Approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD), Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single- family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R-15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 .. PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re-building the non-conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single- family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R-15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). In addition. the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced the required front setback (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setback (from 10 to 5'). According to the application, the two single-family residences proposed to be built would be sized in accordance with the R-15 zone district standards for floor area, with slope reduction taken into account. Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: Citv Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM COMOS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the construction of a "Detached Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single-family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots. Final Review Authority: Citv Council. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 .. EXISTING CONDITIONS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision. although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non-conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non-purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non-conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet. according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property mav have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staff' s position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 .. MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R-15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R-15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: R-15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard 25' 10' Setback Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard 10" 5' Setback South Side Yard 10' 15' Setback STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two. single-family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view con-idors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition. the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single-family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison) Staff's support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single-family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5.760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single-family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: ' The limitation allows the application to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, which was put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view-planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention. but only if the existing duplex mass were split up 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 . . 3 R'64~ *1Qle between the new homes. lf the new homes together are larger than the duple 1 they replaced, then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. -3 Â£ 'el 7-TE,49 ~ The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. The applicants proposal to use the R-15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller sized lots would result in a higher FAR than what would be achieved if the lots were the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on the proposed 11,237 sq. ft. lot, 4,236 sq. ft. of floor area would be allowed in the R-15 zone district, which results in a .37 FAR. If the lot were to instead meet the minimum lot size iii the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.) and the structure were to be limited to 2,880 sq. ft., in accordance with the staff recommendation (half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .30. The chart below illustrates these scenarios: r 44/ O Different Lot Size: Al~wable Floor Resplting FAR: Scenarios: ~rea in R-15 Applicants 11,237 sq. ft. / 4,236 sq. ft. '*1.J .38 -eh Proposal: 11,428 sq. ft. â‚¬249-sq. ft. i,ott, .37 Compliance with $13.1 3 950 U Â· C R-15 Minimum 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. .30 91 4 Lot Size: Staff 11,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .25 â€¢ Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single-family structures would not be allowed on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two-single family residences, staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood. STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54% is 9.91 In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the apartment complex to the south. The applicant has agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10') in exchange for the reduced setbacks on the north. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single-family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 .. DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. Per staff s recommendation o f limiting the size o f the two single-family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADLJ or payment o f the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this. t* applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If P&Z approves the applicant's propgkal 'to allow the new *ingle family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the dupfex fo the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17,2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings - Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: Application 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 .. RESOLUTION NO. 9, (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision , and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director. and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WIIEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code. GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director: however. -1 - .. according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where, by a to (-O vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision. and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: - 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single- family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction o f the City Engineer. e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right-of-way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right-of-way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings. but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 8- 1 .. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. / 4.A 3. The floor ~#ea of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to *.UÂ·sq. ft., which is the amount of floor area of the existing duplex. A note indicatiÂ® this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 9 2160 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance o f a building permit. Section 2: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section. subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion o f this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPRGVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 17,2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk -9- =7,4 .. EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map iii the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential" Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements 6f the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very liiiear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character ofthe surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development pl an review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single- family dwelling unit. - 10- .. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Zone District Dimensional Requirement F = Proposed Requirement Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot 1 ........................ 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2............... ..... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lotl........ ................ 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2......................... 15,000........ ..... 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft.leach add'1. 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: - 11 - .. a) The character of. and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R-15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single-family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of o iT-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever j oint use o f common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant proposes to compjy with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists 1 insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: 12 - .. a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection. snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense iii order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density. therefore, are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site' s physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if. a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The sites physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. -13- .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site' s natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity ofthe town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and opeii space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement ofthe Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks : along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to I pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. -14- .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non-residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man-made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may Â·significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan -15- .. an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single-family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park. Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or - ~ recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual ~ benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. -16- .. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas. and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public .facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City' s infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities: public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES lT COMPLY? YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC), adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way. or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both of the proposed single-family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. - 17- .. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single-family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES lT COMPLY? YES Criteria #3, #4, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. - 18- .. EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMOS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single-family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single-family. In order to qualify for a single-family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident-occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling", is applicable iii this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single-family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex. there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this ease. - 19- .. EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFFFINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large anc! recently constructed single-family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single-family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements ofthis Title. -20- .. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R-15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope. the property 1-las already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals o f the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. -21- .. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. -22- .. EX11IBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17,2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS Attendees: Scott Woodford. Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle - PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single-family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zoning: â€¢ 517 Park Circle is located in the R-15 PUD zone district that has the folIowing dimensional requirements: -23- .. Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet â€¢ The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B-Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R-15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R-15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). â€¢ Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. â€¢ Park Fee - The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. â€¢ Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. â€¢ Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: â€¢ Encroachment - An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. â€¢ Site Distance - The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. â€¢ Drivewav - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. - 24 - ' .. Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 st sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC/517ParkCircle -25- I. .'.*I'll 1. F 44/& 17 477 13, \P.1 . \ FR ./ f EXHIBIT-E 1 LOT SIZE ANALYSIS 1. . .% -;'./ 44-4-crV0 2 327.0..i* ,;7 &04 / Â£ f. ... .... . ..V . / '' pr-Â·~ t, ~ \ Subjectiite 3* / b ,9 i:, r. 11 291 -â€ž1 i . ...49,~ . ' .9,9 l./ /9 .7/ 11,237 sq. ft. lot .11428 sq. ft. lot - , Lftfprox. homes ~ * i fit:.49 ,> .r2264--Al, 41/ L 200 Puk-Circle ~ 44 , / t Â§9: â‚¬ # C r . ..J ' 1 ;fditÂ¢39 / 3,373 sq. ft. home 15,271 sq. ft. lot .501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 4Â»12 41â‚¬ 01.. /4'.444//.212/#/ d 2,699 sq. ft. home / 43 24 \\ 9/ 4%337 /Al 'L f ) W.:f / .6Â¥42 ...' , 62Â«%4 9 1, , / //-- 1 /*4443/41. 4 1- \/ / . .% Nt / // , . A It/1./. . / '.Â· ././.0// 831Â©f / I / p*4 - , / - ,/ -- // \ , 1.1 -1 ' 1 1 -/ //44%44 /4 J'~ 'gVT32 , / 4/ . 1 91 1, 1 444 : 1 Â· v .Â·,i r / // ..37 \ â„¢11 200 Park Circle f. 72> NE'/ i .Â·1 / 15,856 sq. ft. lot 1 Â· 27-7 :a k .7 Apartments A - L. 2. 2,674 sq. ft. home Â·/111 4 / . A %/ 1 7/ a , P.r .:v. ~~:.1 : 1=~r1126,1 <.,f 'll, 190 Park Circle ~/7.~t,1/1/ 1\/t<~73'~rD/11/= -- - 1 / 0:9â‚¬9 / 18,259 sq. ft. lot i ! / //.2 , N :/ 4%4. . 3,004 sq. ft. home , .Tht *.f. 1 1 0.-/ . / ...>3<%~ ~. / -1 ,#4-1 . 74*427---11Â«. B. ijÂ¢ /Rff.,8-9 \ 114:2 / //' J 4 /:9/ : L I f : 1 .1 1 1 L.-1 â‚¬1~1'Â· 1 - &04 1 5 Tri-Plex - a 4..loif-1 510 Park Circle I :44-n - A 0-] 1. L1 -~ 2/ / 8,200 sq. ft. lot , \ 1,591 sq. ft./unit . :1?142'A .-.*---ill.. - /1 r N:.&40% 1 1 -, 11 -699; 11 - '44, p=42' A~1 11 0%?C '. -1 - 413 ~_.rf'll~- ti< ~ it,jÂ© a ..32.k . - 1....i...9 1 !1 F Â«1 i & j t 1% i re 91 -mt \ 61-1... : .,r- Â».~ EF~ I j 1, 1 d. j 4941* 1 4 - - 1 P.. 11 i i 3124 1 1 1 1 -- / Aft ...I- 1 I. 14.1 / /,1, - .11 1 1 ... 1 1 ) MNIJAV M EXHIBIT F .. SIAN CLAUSON 1 SETBACK ANALYSIS Planning Â· Urban J Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies _ Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 4 February 2004 FAX: 970.920.1628 E-MALL. clauson@scaplanning.com WEB: www.scaplanning.corn Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support ofthis variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty-five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback ofthe nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10-foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case ofLot 2, the proposed 10-foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass ofthe building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area ofthe site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site-specific qualities ofthe proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, ifyou have further questions about this matter. Verv truly yours, Â«Â« Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants % :Dd-*~'Â·-\ Pi.ANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CUENTS Â¥;.mia, Re//Â«//39 1-// . 4-2\\ \477 ///1 f .. k //N L i g j 11 "-1 / 0 6 . 4/ L -, '/ 1 11' h 1 1 .Lis / ill ,%.%*lil i L - 41 I.\ i, A 1 41 1 I -1 1 L , r. j. I" ' 'â‚¬ j / b 0 1 LA 1,r X , / j /91 .. 7 f~ 11 /f . 4 1 1 UN /4 1 4 \ 4-4/ 1 17 Â·Â· / liu / 9 V . 6 , 3,\19-1 4 .1 \\\ /51 7 L C a 1 t) 0 6- 'Ck Â»43/04 act \ /1\ dj 4 - Setback Range = 0.0' - 54.7' 0 4330Â« 9 1+X-6 b. . / r Setback Median = 9.9' * 3 1 1 &91. - 2,1 - w \2 Â· -itt= 9 1 - f .. 4.7 \ ,-4 8 12 1- h (10 W , 1 /FAJ-OH -\ / %/Â»x /17\ 1 t-4 - 7 2 22*jÂ¥. /- 1 71 fÂ»Â«~ rd--2-N n \-----------------\------------------------------\ ~14.-t *41*4 CZE, 41 Â«24 \ 09 A-11 ) :M I I I XI M,.<-2,~ i:Ele; I\ V\>v \ / t.1-J ----n ~ EYÂ«094-~~~~h\, L.~41 0-3 2 44 sisKIEUÂ¥ loeqps k '.~ 1 0*J.t / 4:. / . . EXHIBIT E 1 , LOT SIZE ANALYSIS , M./ 7 ' 7 1,9 A 1*G P , .1 4 / / .4 ie> / f Subject Site 1~ ?114 \ 11,237 sq ft lot 11,428 sq ft lot ~ / 9 4,200 approx homes 4% p .* I''Afl e e ' V Y. 200 Park Cticle 15 271 sq it lot 3.373 sq it borne 501 Park Circle ~~"=1 -11 . 1 3,1,6 sq ft lot 4 2.699 sq it home 1/ ' //9 / 0/ 4 141 f 1 - k. A + 1 f I .,4 I. I. '.. ..'. ' '/43 - v 'Â¥--1 1 ~ 4 - 200 Park Circle 15.856 sq ft lot 2,674 sq ft hollie * Apartments E-A.x ~f /*1 \ 1\ I k . ' . I , 190 Park Circle 41 ~ X . 7 1. 18,259 sq ft lot 3.004 sq ft liome ~t/1 - -- 1 1 ~i 3-- \ - -- 510 Park Circle *tut i Tri-Pin - 1 8.200 sq ft lot _ LT - 1,591 sq ft /unit 2 11- 1 , - 1 \ >4 . 1 LE.J - 41&,A , I~|U'qE' 1, 1/ . ... * 1 -91 9 r U p , /11 \ I. Y f,0 ' J J \ 4 , ?A 1 \ , r 1 r, Â» . t.'10' f .. 122 ,/7 , 11 O/ Â« t 1 ./1 1,0 1 , .. STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning â€¢ Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 15 January 2004 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 City of Aspen FAx: 970.920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning. com Community Development Department WEB: www.scaplanning.com 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Scott: On behalf ofthe applicants and in response to comments provided by Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer, follow DRC review, we are providing a revised Dimensional Requirements Form and site plan for the proposed lot split and PUD at 517 Park Circle. Along with this, are providing an analysis of existing slopes on the property and revised slope reduction calculations. The slope reduction analysis shows that areas of steep slopes on the proposed Lot 2 ofthe subdivision exceed 25% ofthe existing lot area. We have therefore reduced the lot area of Lot 2 by 25% for purposes of calculating allowable floor area. For purposes of clarity, we have revised the dimensional requirements form into two sheets, one for each ofthe lots to be created. Lot 2 has been reduced by 2,857 s. f to a lot area of 8,571 s. f for purposes of calculating floor area. After consulting with Sarah Oates regarding the appropriateness of reassigning floor area within the PUD, we have averaged the allowable floor areas of Lot 1 and Lot 2, so as to obtain an equitable distribution for both property owners. This is reflected in the allowable and proposed floor areas for each lot as shown on the two Dimensional Requirements Form sheets. The site plan has been modified to show that a variance is requested for front and north side yard setbacks on each lot. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from 25 feet to 10 feet. We believe that this is consistent with the front setbacks on other adjacent properties and allows for better utilization ofthe property. Increasing the south sideyard setback to 15' and reducing the north sideyard setback to 5 feet on both lots will allow a greater separation between Lot 2 and existing residential development, while shifting both houses slightly toward the County easement granted to the property owners on the North. This also allows for better utilization ofthe property. I understand that these additional variance requests will require renoticing for the public hearing. An additional change shows the existing driveway at Lot 1 being abandoned. Lot 1 will continue to take access through the easement provide by the County to Wagar. L liECEIVED shows a new curb cut that is spaced 10 feet within the property line. JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN A BUILDING DEPAPTUArr PIANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CUENTS 1 .. Mr. Scott Woodford 15 January 2004 Page Two These changes should rectify the issues that were raised and allow the proposal to move forward to a public hearing before the Planning &Zoning Commission. Four copies of all documents are provided per your request. Please let me know ifI can provide any additional information. *EX.intly y~urs, /e Oil\ -Â·>41--8 Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC End: 1. Slope Analysis Diagram 2. Dimensional Requirements Form, 2 pages 3. Revised Site Plan, dated 13 January 2003 CC: Applicants RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN BUILE'l"# irÂ°' r" :ch,T I â€¢1 .. 1 \ / ~ ~ STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Â§88'37'09X 71.54' Pkmning â€¢ Landscape Architecmre 200 East Main Streetâ€¢Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 .d>d 12' Wide Existing - faxÂ· (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ info@scaplanning.corn 4094' Dri-,oy to Rema.h < - 6 RACQUET CLUB 1 BOOK 466 AT PAGE 302 4- / I PUD Rquest Id'. Zoning R uirements , it .4/ 9- / 5' \ 1- 1 ' Lot 1 j 11,237. 5sf Property / //1 / e Calc ed Flo 4,236sf - ropos d Floor Areo= 098sf Ul- 3 \ 70. 4 r.\ / 9 05 1 Abandon Existing Curb Cut - -Al 2- aE:77?/c 0 - 24 aj~ \0 - Re-Locole trating Berm i and Existing Vegetotion 4 OT ~ -, Â·Â¢, 4 fl 25' 7 .4 9 (Pli 998 - 2 0 9. + 1 A ./ 2 4 1, 8.83st P prt sp~ml SI e Reducnlt r,la 8 sf ~.~, 95// culated 00 e 43,5 7-*ENCHMARKI ELEV: 972.82 roposed 0*40 14,9 s 10 40 1\ 04 * 40* 5' Wide Sidewalk /9,- 5 / New 12' Wide Driveway .9>2> St / GAS LOCATE Wagar-Detweller Property 17 Nov. 2003 1 RevMed-13 Jon 2003 4 *L 1 Option C1 1"=30' - GAS OLD LOCATE ' 45â€¢ 60' RECEIVEIL. = IN////A Y/////////A 13.39' MTNESS CORNER 7//////////A I 056. 5' Wide Sidewalk JAN i 6 itAY#' Airtic .. Attachment B-1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM - Lot 1 Project: Wager Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet (fathering parcel) Lot Area: Lot 1 = 11,237 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Not determined Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: Proposed: duplex 4.236 4,098 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 ft. Allowable: 25 ft Proposed: 25 i Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. On-Site parking. Existing: 1 Required: 1 Proposed: Mindmum oil % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback (feety. Existing: 15 Required: 15 Proposed: 10 Rear Setback. Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 CombinedFÂ®. Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 15 Side Setback Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required.- 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11 237 square feet. a minimum front setback often (10) feet, and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN .. Attachment B-2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM - Lot 2 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment. Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 5 I 7 Park Circle Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet (fathering parcel): Lot 2 = 11.428 square feet Lot Area: Lot 2 - 8,571 square feet, with slope reduction at 25% maximum (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number ofresidential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: 4 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): NA Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing. 5,760 Allowable: Proposed: duplex 3,959 4,098 Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 ft. Allowable: 25 ft. Proposed: 25 ft. Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 ft Proposed: 25 ft. On-Site parking. Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: Minimum of 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback (feet). Existing: 25 Required: 15 Proposed: 10 Reas Setback. Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 25 Combined WR:. Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required. 10 Proposed.- 15 Side Setback. Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required.- 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size for the PUD of 11 428 square feet. a minimum front setback often (10) feet and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN .. -4 -h 1/ Attachment B 9 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM , Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R-15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet Lot Area: 19 166 square feet (approximately) for slope reduction (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): .Existing: 0 Proposed: 0 Number of residential units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1 Number ofbedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Not determined Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.). Existing: 5,760 Allowable: 5,380 Proposed. 4,236 -Lotl duplex duplex 4249 - Lot 2 -Principal bldg. height. - Eristing: 2% 1 Allowable: 1% 1 Proposed: 28 ft. Access bldg. height: Existing: NIA Allowable: 15 1 Probosed: 25 ft On-Site parking: Existing: 4 Required: 4 Proposed: Not determined % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: Ni A Proposed: Not ddermined % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: Nl A proposed: Not. dde~milied Front Setback (feefy. Existing: 25 Required: 25 Proposed: 15 Rear Setback: Eristing 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 CombinedER. Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback- Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 , Side Setback: Eristing 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 10 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 10 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: A small portion ofthe building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11.237 square feet. - lili .1--- ,/I . \ ~~ STAN CL.AUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC \ Planning â€¢ Landscape Architecture ~ . 200 East Main Streetâ€¢ Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 , tax: (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢info@scaplanning.com / 1 41 ~ f C 4 ill \ l / Area o exist g house and grading . , / - \1 lili If / 490 6 /1 ''12 9 \1 \ \/1 tr-- m #FER j J 11 4 77,/ 0 \/ f, 41 -/./0- . , 0 3 Â» -9 ,# e 14 Ini C 4 1 40 j * %#pt (l/J .4 \ 100% 4~\-4-970 ~ 1 / Il l 1/ 1 1 11.1 1 i i / 34 C 1 1 | 1 \\ / 5 I. V- 1 V RECEIVED 1/ JAN 1 6 2004 ~ 20%-30% slopes 898sf ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Wagor-Detweiler Property ~ 30% slopes or greater 2770sf 07 January 2004 2770+9=3219sf Slope Analysis 11428.83* .25=2857.2 1 "=30' 3219sf > 2857.2sf, therefore, 0 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' 25% reduction for floor area applies r///////1 r//////A Y//////////1 t/////Â»1 ry//A l APHIC S C ALE 20 - -ff 1 < H f A STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES. LLC / inct 9 RACO, /~ IN BOO andon Existing rb Cut xisting Berm Vegetation //1 1 \ / 4%~ / PyriBEr f\- b j.x De rty xx/\7Â» E-ij < - W v 1 GAS OLD LOCATE Option C 1 1 "=30' FOUND #5 REBAR, ~ ~61 / 13.39' WITNESS CORNER -1 -7 1996 5' Wide Sidewalk 0 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' 'llilll# illllll1 'llilillill' 11111111 ]llll1llllll /49<0 RECEIVED WV ' JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN Billial#r .100,74â„¢CAIT r I 0 0 0 0 00' A , . , 0 11 . A 0: 0 0 10 . . ... 00 0- 0 44 ' j A.. A .A 0 1 .illillillilillillililillillillillilli~lilligliwilwliglvillill 0 l~. 0-. 0 0.:0 - - 0 0 U 40, .. 0 0-0 0. A -0 0 2 . 0.0 t. 0. A -~ A . 0. 0 .0 A. . 00 41. 0 .. . 0 4 'i, -1 0 ....mal 7 . h * 6 0% 1 A. L , 0./ A Z Z 'iâ€¢â€¢r 1% 4 0 A :. a Â¥ e. -.1 4 7 B.14 04 . 0 -0 4.0 A -0 9 1, -1.--1 . A. .: 3 * Â¥ 4 .... 1 1 .. ..i ..lill- 0- 0-0 + 1--* . 2... 0 4 . A .A - .. a - 0 h D 0 . . -ell A A- . 00 APHIC SCALE 20 A C ii ~ J STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC inct 1 41 1 Planning â€¢ Landscape Architecture , '~' 200 East Main Streetâ€¢Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 , fax: (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ info@scaplanning.com 988Â°37'09"W 71.54' -- ------*-1-5---- 44/ X X APR 12' Wide Existing ~ 4 r t, Driveway to Remain j 40/ AP % l 1 9 RACQUET CLUB f IN BOOK 466 AT PAGE 302 , ~ 1 \ \ 1 13 4 ./- 0 /3 /1\\ 5 / / t~h / / 17 / / PUD Request 1~ / / 1 N V I / \\ \6'J Zoning R quirements ,/\31 3 1 1 I 15 1 1 I \ da '. aN , Fij / 10' f / / /7, Ce /1 I J\\\ \ / \00 1 / 1.=<0 / / Lot 1 1 J. 1 1 i \ , 11,237. 5sf Property // 1 ~h , Calcula ed"Â·Floor-Arac- 4,236sf i , 1.-x1---x-x-v-#- _' ropos d Floor- Area= ,098st 14 ~N~ 10' ~%3 1 1 1 / ' I 25' 1 1 1 1 1 / 990 / 4 1 1 < 0 1 1 1 1 I % 1 4 ' th I I 1 / 1 Abandon Existing i / / Curb Cut 1 / 1 \ 382- .lEG-TRIC --- / \ / / A --rE / r Re/ //Â»09\\\-%- /44-- \ -~ Crill- \ 1 1 A /10 A / Re-Locate Existing Berm 0 - \ 0 0 / 1.61 10' / and Existing Vegetation \ 0 / 1 - .. 1 1 - 3 1 44/ / )9 OE f / - . I 1\ 1 1 \ b.0- '0 1 1'25' ' 0~1-- 1- -- - Â¢) 1 43 nsÂ· 1 276 / \ \ 4- fl/ / - -- Of - 9 999- \- 12 2211 1 + l' 1 le / Lot 4 9 1/ / 1 9 , 2 WATER / , ,/ 4 , 1,4 8.83sf P p rt SPIGOTSÂ« / 1 0 *0 ofit ' / 067*pe Reduc n l.troF 1. sf C Iculated Oo re =3, 5 tf 1 / 4 BENCHMARK ELEV:~972.82' roposed oNE Afe 4, 9 sf 10 100 i o \ I\\ 0 0 0 / I h / 25 7 \ 0 / 0) (P Of 09 / 5' Wide Sidewalk 1 / - 1- >- p \ \0 /T ./ 4/**r, 4 1 0 / 1 10 / / 1/ 0 A 1 / / O New 12' Wide Driveway \ 0/1 / / \Â«0 1 / 0 \0, / i / 14- / / GAS OLD LOCATE t \ g ! b. 4 0 ICB / 1 1 / / / / 1 0 \ / / 1 ' #1 - - - Â·1 Wagar-Detweiler- Property 7 -9 ch 0, \ 0 / / /0 17 Nov. 2003 1\ /70 /10' 1 4 0 / 0 Revised-13 Jan 2003 \ / en Ue / V / GAS OLD LOCATE Option C 1 1 "=30' 1 1 FOUND #5 REBAR, 13.39' WITNESS CORNER /on 5' Wide Sidewalk 0 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' lili I I l f 1/Ill/11 llllll1llllf fig }llllll[. Illlllllllll WV w RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2u04 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 0 APHIC SCALE 20 0,1 1 k\ ( I] 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES. LLC / inel -R RACOL IN BOO, andon Existing rb Cut <isting Berm Vegetation \ f 'fb / / /7 /BEA 3 0-A/- 11' vvuuu/ Lj 4., L VV\_,11 \.j 1 1 1 Upe rty 9 < L.P , / 0 ' 1 0/ 7n/ \ib// 17 Nov. 2003 - cÂ© e 1 0 / 10' / e 4 0 / Revised-13 Jan 2003 /-1 YD . 4 V 1 -GAS OLD LOCATE Option C 1 1 "=30' RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN FOUND #5 REBAR, 4 1 // BUILDING DEPARTMENT 13.39' WITNESS CORNER - 5 ' Wide Sidewalk 0 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' 1 Ill lili illllllf lllllllllll'- }1111111 111111111111 47Â© WV N 4 'lei 0 0 0 0 . , 0: 0 0 10 ... 0 0 00 0 0 . 0 .-0 0.-0 4 4 4 A.. A .A 0 . . 1 ... a . F 9- 0 0,-0 0. . . ... t. 0. A -0 A ..: 4 0 . 1, A. ~4. . 0 2 ..al . 4 ..I , ~~ -- ..- ' '41 44 . 4 0 00 0 04 .-im... . 1. 0 n ...1 9 14 A. e , 0 2: . i.â€¢ t 4 J ., .Â» '4 A -. . A. . 2 . /........Wip 4 0 - '00 k 40 ~ 0. . 0.00 *IN 0- 0-0 9 .. . A .1 . A . PHIC SCALE ( 1] 4 / STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC -* \ net Planning â€¢ Landscape Architecture ' *~ 200 East Main Streetâ€¢ Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 j fax: (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ info@scaplanning.com fe (00 7- 'no "M/ 1 6 54 -7 --7. I l. 1: / 1 - /-,20_--_JILLIEZIL - h / N / RACQUET CLUB . I if N BOOK 466 AT PAGE 302 1 1 1 / I i 1 1/ 1 10 1 / 13 f\\ / I , /1 \ j \1 ~\ f \ 7 / 4 100 -/ l 1 1 1 /1 1 / 1/ 1 1 P, / 1 1 /11 / 0 /25' 0 ./ 1 / / ! I l fl / f mt f / \\\ 5, -1 1 \/ loj I '-I--7 i__ 30/ ff / 1 / 1/ \ 0\ f i / ' 11,237.85sf Property 0 -</ 04 // , fl ' ' 5860.2sf Building Envelope h \\ \ 1 1 1 1 0 \ \/ 1 fo j 0- r * 1 6 /./1 '2- L-- 6,414:87 sf Building En velope 1 -1 1 1 1 /0/ \ /41\ \9 10' /6- / ' 1 1 , 1 / 1 \ / 25'/ 0 f / Al J / /0 I'\ll 1 / / / 1 1 / / 1 4 ' 1 1 1 / 1 ./ 4 /1/ il \ \ 1 -1 1 . /0 1/; 1/ -/ \ TE4kex EL>t.4421 2 f / 4/ 1 ~/~0 ~ /1 12 ' Wide Drive way / 1 -- ; F / 00 /0 '." 14 \\ i. 1 1/ n Re-Locate Existing Berm Ch / 03 / P\9 6 1 9./ - \.-\ L.'' .% 4. / I -4 h\,-1 t 1.11 a 40L / 6/ , 10' -01 1 4 and Existing Vegetation 1 1 \2 / 0-/ 1 \,1 .:111Â»- \F .0 f O 4/ 9/ .-3 - .- 1-%- K --- . . ----- - -.--,-- 19@1.../ /3 / f //~>ft~//// 14 V f /1 - 43 Ill 7 / 1 3 9 . f TR\/4, /4 -0 - I ,/ 0 I / c ' ---2-.C-* 7<4 I- - -4 1-'*.0. 11 1 I 4 + j 79 - 1/ 19 j Le 4 -7 h Un â€¢ g C %-h .'r \ -. --77 330 .4 r . 1// 4 \\ / 70 , l/l / 9 4.) AT 1 2 M~*4 ~ c-Â· 1 / /--1 \ / 1 40 0 /\ 1 74 , 4 I \C :1 1 4, /3 / 0 11,428.83sf Property- / C j ~ y 31 sp/( i,' 0-- Â·z/ / ,. *t~ 1 13 I 1 \\\ 1 1 1 / f \\ 1 / A Vt' r ~4 444 2 v . R / AA)61 4 / --/. ' ch 6,562sf Building Envelope , , 1 k j & , ' 1 ' 661545fd Building .Â·Enve lope:-1 L Â». ~i-/BE+Av,(,i &1/\Â«Nift 0\ < . 1 - 1 9%44 ' - 1 4%441 <3/ f / , A 0 â‚¬ f 11 1// 1 \0\ 7 / 25' / \0\ i \\\ \ 0 + of ti/l) 41 (1..~ / 5' Wide Sidewalk 1 0 -f ht 10 /2 0/ 1 \\4\ I , f iff- f / 12' Wide Driveway n b / 1 1 / 1 \ ,-3 1 11 / 3 / 6 4/1 / 10. 1 \ 4.0 / C 7 7 , 'v/ --~ 0'_6. 1-1_t--}CATE 4. 4 R /134 / / 1/ 1 / V. Â£ 1 I / 74 / / 1 / 10' / - I 47 / -- h kf~Ii\.\\<\\~ 1/1/agor-Oetwele/00 Or-oper-9 4 0 / f e i '0 0 / i --1-4/Â«-4--i .7 1 26 June FOOL_f 1 -GAS OLD LOCATE Revised- 6 October 2003 11 / FOUND #5 REBAR, Option C 1 13.39' WENESE CORI\IER-1 1,7=30 3 5' Wide Sidewalk 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' lillillf 111111/ r lilli 111. 1llll1lll//r / 31- f 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC ~f Planning â€¢ Landscape Architecture , 200 East Main Streetâ€¢ Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 , fax: (970)920-1628â€¢www.scaplanning.comâ€¢ info@scaplanning.com 1 1 \ \ /\ f /4 / 0 \ \ I I \ I / 01 11 1 / 1 11 1 /25' \\ 1, 1 1 / i f 0 1 10,/ 9 0 AN 1 1 i i / \ 9 ---1 \ ~ \ / 11,237.85sf Property /\ \ \ , / 5860.2sf Bui/ding Envelope \ 1 1 li / \\ 0 1 0 / 6,4 74.6/67 l.36.i,Gi ' i 1 1 0 /,/ I L \ 1 1 0 1 0f 1 1 -- 4 0 I le 111 I 0 /4 ' 1 -4 1 0 /0 / / 0 .- / 0 - . / 12' Wide Driveway / / / l -\ L f 1 /- / l / - 0-- -~ ~ / - Re-Locate Ex/Sling Berm // ..0.-. // -7* 10' and Existing Vegetation 11 1 .- Of 1 > \ 14 // -*.*.. 1 /f A 9/1 f / 1,1 v. / f i 25' 1 0-0' / M- + \ 7 01 11 1 1 11 - / 1 // 11,428.83sf Property f A 6,562sf Building En ve/ope 4- 1 / 10' 6,154.s f Building :En velope, ~~ < '1 - 4 / / 0 2 1- / \0 / 1 I 'Kn/,1 / 2*3 5' Wide Sidewalk 91% 50%3 rÂ«44 57 *4 / 0 / / i / 12' Wide Driveway 10 1 ./ 10 // 0 \\0 / i \ 7 1 00 / \ / / 0 / f e 5 / 1 \ 0 / f 1 .0 / / 15' --f ,/ ~& 1 0 \ . 70' . Wagor--De tweiler- Proper- ty \ 4 0 / / ..1 26 June 2003 V / at Revised- 6 October 2003 4 1 1 Option 0 1 <9 1 '- 30' 5' Wide Sidewalk 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' 11111111 'lilililillf 1 33 H.LU 0.\